TY  - RPRT
T1  - LAS VEGAS VALLEY DISPOSAL BOUNDARY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - LAS VEGAS VALLEY DISPOSAL BOUNDARY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36369454; 11321-040584_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The disposition of property within the Las Vegas Resource Management Area, Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Las Vegas area is the one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US. Population growth has exceeded projections since 1995 and growth is anticipated to coniine along the upward trend in the near future. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative which would continue management under the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, are considered in this draft EIS. In the proposed action, all remaining Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, approximately 46,700 acres, within the disposal boundary area would be sold or transferred by 2015. The preferred alternative (Conservation Transfer Alternative) would be similar to the proposed alternative, except that the 5,000 acres of sensitive vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species within the Conservation Transfer Area would be transferred to entities that would protect or not initiate any resource damage or disturbance. The conservation transfer land could be nominated for transfer to local or regional government agencies using the same process as the other land disposals. Approximately 41,700 acres of and in the disposal boundary would be transferred at an average annual rate of 4,000 acres, with the remaining available transferred completely by 2015. It is projected that 17,500 acres of development would occur on BLM land disposed from 2004 through 2018. The BLM would continue to implement reality actions under the Conservation Transfer Alternative, with 1,200 acres projected to be Recreation and Public Purposes Act for public purposes leaseholder. Approximately 3,600 acres would be covered by rights-of-way grants and eventually transferred. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer under the preferred alternative would provide for controlled development of the area, while protecting natural, cultural, and paleontological resources. Employment rolls would be boosted and the regional economy enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land disposal would reduce ephemeral range in Hidden Valley by 3,00 acres, though this land has low range potential for permittees within the boundaries. Construction and operation would average approximately 17 percent of the air pollutant emissions for Clark County, though these levels would fall below federal standards. New sand and gravel operations would be developed within the disposal boundaries. Steep slopes and unstable areas along the Las Vegas Wash could present geologic hazards; however, development in this area would be required to address any associated areas and would be required to avoid the floodplain. Nine historic sites in the potential disposal area would lie within the disposal boundary area, of which 660 acres are located on BLM lands; these sites were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Two historic sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP or cross through the conservation transfer area. Indirect impacts would affect paleontological resources, visual aesthetics would be degraded, as would recreation resources and open space. The presence of hazardous materials would have direct impact on the sale for the land to be transferred. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Purposes Airport Act of 1928, Recreation and Public Purposes Act, and Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998.
JF  - EPA number: 040584, 325 pages, December 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-48
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Sand
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Las Vegas Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Public Purposes Airport Act of 1928, Compliance
KW  - Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369454?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAS+VEGAS+VALLEY+DISPOSAL+BOUNDARY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LAS+VEGAS+VALLEY+DISPOSAL+BOUNDARY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LAS VEGAS VALLEY DISPOSAL BOUNDARY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 16346264; 11321
AB  - PURPOSE: The disposition of property within the Las Vegas Resource Management Area, Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Las Vegas area is the one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US. Population growth has exceeded projections since 1995 and growth is anticipated to coniine along the upward trend in the near future. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative which would continue management under the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, are considered in this draft EIS. In the proposed action, all remaining Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, approximately 46,700 acres, within the disposal boundary area would be sold or transferred by 2015. The preferred alternative (Conservation Transfer Alternative) would be similar to the proposed alternative, except that the 5,000 acres of sensitive vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species within the Conservation Transfer Area would be transferred to entities that would protect or not initiate any resource damage or disturbance. The conservation transfer land could be nominated for transfer to local or regional government agencies using the same process as the other land disposals. Approximately 41,700 acres of and in the disposal boundary would be transferred at an average annual rate of 4,000 acres, with the remaining available transferred completely by 2015. It is projected that 17,500 acres of development would occur on BLM land disposed from 2004 through 2018. The BLM would continue to implement reality actions under the Conservation Transfer Alternative, with 1,200 acres projected to be Recreation and Public Purposes Act for public purposes leaseholder. Approximately 3,600 acres would be covered by rights-of-way grants and eventually transferred. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer under the preferred alternative would provide for controlled development of the area, while protecting natural, cultural, and paleontological resources. Employment rolls would be boosted and the regional economy enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land disposal would reduce ephemeral range in Hidden Valley by 3,00 acres, though this land has low range potential for permittees within the boundaries. Construction and operation would average approximately 17 percent of the air pollutant emissions for Clark County, though these levels would fall below federal standards. New sand and gravel operations would be developed within the disposal boundaries. Steep slopes and unstable areas along the Las Vegas Wash could present geologic hazards; however, development in this area would be required to address any associated areas and would be required to avoid the floodplain. Nine historic sites in the potential disposal area would lie within the disposal boundary area, of which 660 acres are located on BLM lands; these sites were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Two historic sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP or cross through the conservation transfer area. Indirect impacts would affect paleontological resources, visual aesthetics would be degraded, as would recreation resources and open space. The presence of hazardous materials would have direct impact on the sale for the land to be transferred. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Purposes Airport Act of 1928, Recreation and Public Purposes Act, and Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998.
JF  - EPA number: 040584, 325 pages, December 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-48
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Sand
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Las Vegas Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Public Purposes Airport Act of 1928, Compliance
KW  - Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346264?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Gannett%2C+M+W%3BLite%2C+KE&rft.aulast=Gannett&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulation+of+Regional+Ground-Water+Flow+in+the+Upper+Deschutes+Basin%2C+Oregon&rft.title=Simulation+of+Regional+Ground-Water+Flow+in+the+Upper+Deschutes+Basin%2C+Oregon&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36386878; 11318-040581_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US/Mexico international border is proposed to connect the Imperial Valley substation in California to a point west of Calexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits, alternative energy technologies and incorporation of mitigation measures into the applicants' proposal. The alternative preferred by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy is the applicants' proposal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid and various mitigation measures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing Nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some burrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040581, 475 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386878?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382695; 11318-040581_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US/Mexico international border is proposed to connect the Imperial Valley substation in California to a point west of Calexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits, alternative energy technologies and incorporation of mitigation measures into the applicants' proposal. The alternative preferred by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy is the applicants' proposal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid and various mitigation measures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing Nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some burrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040581, 475 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382695?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36380629; 11318-040581_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US/Mexico international border is proposed to connect the Imperial Valley substation in California to a point west of Calexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits, alternative energy technologies and incorporation of mitigation measures into the applicants' proposal. The alternative preferred by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy is the applicants' proposal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid and various mitigation measures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing Nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some burrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040581, 475 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380629?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36378744; 11318-040581_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US/Mexico international border is proposed to connect the Imperial Valley substation in California to a point west of Calexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits, alternative energy technologies and incorporation of mitigation measures into the applicants' proposal. The alternative preferred by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy is the applicants' proposal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid and various mitigation measures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing Nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some burrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040581, 475 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378744?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36365730; 11315-040577_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 29,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 north and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0324D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040577, Final EIS--1,021 pages and maps, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365730?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36365603; 11318-040581_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US/Mexico international border is proposed to connect the Imperial Valley substation in California to a point west of Calexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits, alternative energy technologies and incorporation of mitigation measures into the applicants' proposal. The alternative preferred by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy is the applicants' proposal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid and various mitigation measures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing Nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some burrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040581, 475 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365603?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS, COLUSA BASIN DRAIN, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS, COLUSA BASIN DRAIN, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36364300; 11319-040582_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term Sacramento River Settlement Contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSCs) in relationship to the operation of the Central Valley Project of southern California is proposed. The Settlement Contracts between Reclamation and the SRSCs provide for an agreement regarding the SRSCs' diversions of natural flows from the Sacramento River and tributaries thereto as well as Reclamation's delivery of Central Valley Project water for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses. The SRSCs comprise 145 contractors that fall into the following three groups: 10 irrigation districts/water districts/mutual water companies/municipalities; 2) individuals involved in standard-form contracts; and 3) individuals involved in short-form contracts. Together, the SRSCs hold rights to divert 2.2 million acre-feet per year from the Sacramento River. The Colusa rain Mutual Water Company, which would also have its contract renewed, would be entitled to an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year released by Reclamation into the Sacramento River as part of a negotiated water rights settlement. The contract amounts range from four to 825,000 acre-feet; the 20 largest SRCSs account for approximately 95 percent of the total contracted amount. The analysis period for this proposal extends through 2004, which is the termination date for the first period of renewal for the 40-year Steelement Contracts. In addition to the proposed action, this abbreviated final EIS considers four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative and provides a census containing public comments on the draft and the revised draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Contract renewals would ensure SRSCs the use of both regulated and unregulated flow of the Sacramento River and its tributaries and provide for an efficient and economic operation of the CVP and for reimbursement to the federal government or CVP expenditures. The contracts would continue to provide for beneficial water use and ensure a reasonable balance among competing demands, including irrigation, domestic consumption, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, power generation, and recreation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would not involve construction or use of resources excepting water. There would be no commitment of nonrenewable resources and no commitment of future generations to permanent use of natural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Public Law 108-37, and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 State 1107). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0459D.
JF  - EPA number: 040582, 321 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-53
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-37, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364300?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrogeology%2C+Water+Quality%2C+and+Distribution+and+Sources+of+Salinity+in+the+Floridan+Aquifer+System%2C+Martin+and+St.+Lucie+Counties%2C+Florida&rft.title=Hydrogeology%2C+Water+Quality%2C+and+Distribution+and+Sources+of+Salinity+in+the+Floridan+Aquifer+System%2C+Martin+and+St.+Lucie+Counties%2C+Florida&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Shasta Lake, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS, COLUSA BASIN DRAIN, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16358305; 11319
AB  - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term Sacramento River Settlement Contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSCs) in relationship to the operation of the Central Valley Project of southern California is proposed. The Settlement Contracts between Reclamation and the SRSCs provide for an agreement regarding the SRSCs' diversions of natural flows from the Sacramento River and tributaries thereto as well as Reclamation's delivery of Central Valley Project water for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses. The SRSCs comprise 145 contractors that fall into the following three groups: 10 irrigation districts/water districts/mutual water companies/municipalities; 2) individuals involved in standard-form contracts; and 3) individuals involved in short-form contracts. Together, the SRSCs hold rights to divert 2.2 million acre-feet per year from the Sacramento River. The Colusa rain Mutual Water Company, which would also have its contract renewed, would be entitled to an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year released by Reclamation into the Sacramento River as part of a negotiated water rights settlement. The contract amounts range from four to 825,000 acre-feet; the 20 largest SRCSs account for approximately 95 percent of the total contracted amount. The analysis period for this proposal extends through 2004, which is the termination date for the first period of renewal for the 40-year Steelement Contracts. In addition to the proposed action, this abbreviated final EIS considers four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative and provides a census containing public comments on the draft and the revised draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Contract renewals would ensure SRSCs the use of both regulated and unregulated flow of the Sacramento River and its tributaries and provide for an efficient and economic operation of the CVP and for reimbursement to the federal government or CVP expenditures. The contracts would continue to provide for beneficial water use and ensure a reasonable balance among competing demands, including irrigation, domestic consumption, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, power generation, and recreation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would not involve construction or use of resources excepting water. There would be no commitment of nonrenewable resources and no commitment of future generations to permanent use of natural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Public Law 108-37, and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 State 1107). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0459D.
JF  - EPA number: 040582, 321 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-53
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-37, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358305?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+SETTLEMENT+CONTRACTS%2C+COLUSA+BASIN+DRAIN%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+SETTLEMENT+CONTRACTS%2C+COLUSA+BASIN+DRAIN%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Shasta Lake, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 16346362; 11315
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 29,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 north and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0324D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040577, Final EIS--1,021 pages and maps, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346362?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16341856; 11318
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US/Mexico international border is proposed to connect the Imperial Valley substation in California to a point west of Calexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits, alternative energy technologies and incorporation of mitigation measures into the applicants' proposal. The alternative preferred by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy is the applicants' proposal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid and various mitigation measures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing Nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some burrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040581, 475 pages, December 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16341856?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371579; 11314-040575_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 24
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371579?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371529; 11314-040575_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371529?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371490; 11314-040575_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 20
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371490?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371295; 11314-040575_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 35
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371295?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McKee%2C+P+W%3BClark%2C+B+R%3BCzarnecki%2C+J+B&rft.aulast=McKee&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Conjunctive-Use+Optimization+Model+and+Sustainable-Yield+Estimation+for+the+Sparta+Aquifer+of+Southeastern+Arkansas+and+North-Central+Louisiana&rft.title=Conjunctive-Use+Optimization+Model+and+Sustainable-Yield+Estimation+for+the+Sparta+Aquifer+of+Southeastern+Arkansas+and+North-Central+Louisiana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371195; 11314-040575_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371195?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Sources+and+Transport+of+Nutrients%2C+Organic+Carbon%2C+and+Chlorophyll-a+in+the+San+Joaquin+River+Upstream+of+Vernalis%2C+California%2C+during+Summer+and+Fall%2C+2000+and+2001&rft.title=Sources+and+Transport+of+Nutrients%2C+Organic+Carbon%2C+and+Chlorophyll-a+in+the+San+Joaquin+River+Upstream+of+Vernalis%2C+California%2C+during+Summer+and+Fall%2C+2000+and+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371088; 11314-040575_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 25
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371088?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371074; 11314-040575_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 43
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371074?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371007; 11314-040575_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 28
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371007?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=JE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=664&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Kansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Kansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370935; 11314-040575_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 22
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370935?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370871; 11314-040575_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 27
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370871?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370820; 11314-040575_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 37
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370820?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370553; 11314-040575_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370553?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370542; 11314-040575_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 17
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370542?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Morlock%2C+SE%3BNguyen%2C+H+T%3BMajors%2C+D+K&rft.aulast=Morlock&rft.aufirst=SE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=528&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Indiana%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Indiana%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370450; 11314-040575_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 16
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370450?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370059; 11314-040575_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370059?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369951; 11314-040575_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369951?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=DA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=480&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+Arkansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+Arkansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BUCKMAN WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, SANTE FE NATIONAL FOREST, SANTA FE, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BUCKMAN WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, SANTE FE NATIONAL FOREST, SANTA FE, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36369756; 11313-040574_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The diversion of water from the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes and to provide water for the Santa Fe area, Sante Fe County, New Mexico is proposed. The Buckman Water Diversion Project would address the immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the city and the county, as well as Las Campas Limited Partnership. Near-term demand for water in the region would not be satisfied by the current supply system. Most of the water to be diverted would be delivered from the San Juan-Chama Project, a US Bureau of Reclamation inter-basin water transfer project. The remainder would be native water rights owned by the parties and diverted from the Rio Grande. The proposed action would include a diversion structure at the Rio Grande water transmission facilities, including pumps and booster station buildings, water tanks, settling ponds and pipes, water treatment facilities, and electric power improvements, and construction of road improvements necessary to build and operate the facilities. Key issues identified during scoping include land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and scenic resources. Alternatives considered in this draft EIS, include a No Action Alternative, the proposed action, sediment facility alternatives, pipeline route alternatives for raw water and treated water pipelines, and power upgrade alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion proposal would prevent continued depletion of the aquifer in the Buckman areas and the flows of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The city would no longer be required to offset depletions with releases of San Juan-Chama water into the Rio Grande and by retiring native water rights owned by the city with respect to the Rio Grande and two of its tributaries. Projected water demand would be satisfied. In addition, road improvements would enhance transportation management in the area. Depressed groundwater levels near the Buckman diversion sites would rebound over a time period of several decades, possibly as much as 100 feet in some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 59 acres would be affected permanently due to the improvements to Buckman Road, construction of the diversion structure, sediment facility booster stations, water treatment plants, and associated infrastructure. Work areas would cover a total of 247 acres, potentially affecting 16 species of federally protected species, including the Rio Grande silvery minnow downstream of the project. Some less mobile reptile species, amphibians, and small mammals would suffer direct mortality. The project infrastructure would permanently displace predator hunting areas. Increased noise levels would also affect wildlife. Special use and rights-of-way permits would need to be issued. The construction and operation of the new Public Service Company of New Mexico substation near the municipal recreation complex would displace two acres of grazing land from one grazing ease, resulting in a slight loss of livestock forage. The average flow of the Rio Grande would decline by less than one percent, most of which will be imported into the Rio Grande from the inner-basin San-Juan Chama Project. The county would be required to acquire water rights in order to use the diversion fully, and Las Campanas would be required to extend their lease rights. Structures in the historic town of Buckman and the Delver and Rio Grande railroad corridor would be physically disturbed by the sediment facility. During coffer dam construction and demolition, downstream areas of the Rio Grande would experience turbidity. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by the presence of facilities, as might sacred Native American sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040574, 212 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-61
KW  - Birds
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Santa Fe National Forest
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369756?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTE+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTE+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Espanola, New Mexico; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369710; 11314-040575_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 19
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369710?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369695; 11314-040575_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 31
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369695?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369586; 11314-040575_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 21
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369586?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369494; 11314-040575_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 32
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369494?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Nazarian%3BSimonds%2C+E+P%3BDickerson%2C+S+M&rft.aulast=Nazarian&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=406&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Florida%2C+Water+2004.+Volume+1B.+Northeast+Florida+Surface+Water&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Florida%2C+Water+2004.+Volume+1B.+Northeast+Florida+Surface+Water&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369259; 11314-040575_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 42
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369259?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369183; 11314-040575_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 41
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369183?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=402&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%3A+Connecticut%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%3A+Connecticut%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369118; 11314-040575_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 40
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369118?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369101; 11314-040575_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369101?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36369012; 11314-040575_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369012?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368923; 11314-040575_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368923?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368829; 11314-040575_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368829?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368784; 11314-040575_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368784?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368514; 11314-040575_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 18
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368514?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368478; 11314-040575_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368478?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368396; 11314-040575_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368396?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368327; 11314-040575_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 34
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368327?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Morris%2C+F%3BRunner%3BStorm%2C+J+B&rft.aulast=Morris&rft.aufirst=F&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=304&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Mississippi%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Mississippi%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368251; 11314-040575_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 26
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368251?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368201; 11314-040575_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368201?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368159; 11314-040575_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 30
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368159?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Georgia%2C+2003+Volumes+1+and+2+%28on+CDROM%29&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Georgia%2C+2003+Volumes+1+and+2+%28on+CDROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368089; 11314-040575_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 29
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368089?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36367560; 11314-040575_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 33
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367560?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36367093; 11314-040575_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367093?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Minnesota%2C+Water+Year+2004+%28on+CD-+ROM%29&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Minnesota%2C+Water+Year+2004+%28on+CD-+ROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 43]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36366007; 11314-040575_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 23
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366007?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16349107; 11314
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tail water recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tail water recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0278D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040575, 571 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-50
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349107?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BUCKMAN WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, SANTE FE NATIONAL FOREST, SANTA FE, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 16343063; 11313
AB  - PURPOSE: The diversion of water from the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes and to provide water for the Santa Fe area, Sante Fe County, New Mexico is proposed. The Buckman Water Diversion Project would address the immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the city and the county, as well as Las Campas Limited Partnership. Near-term demand for water in the region would not be satisfied by the current supply system. Most of the water to be diverted would be delivered from the San Juan-Chama Project, a US Bureau of Reclamation inter-basin water transfer project. The remainder would be native water rights owned by the parties and diverted from the Rio Grande. The proposed action would include a diversion structure at the Rio Grande water transmission facilities, including pumps and booster station buildings, water tanks, settling ponds and pipes, water treatment facilities, and electric power improvements, and construction of road improvements necessary to build and operate the facilities. Key issues identified during scoping include land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and scenic resources. Alternatives considered in this draft EIS, include a No Action Alternative, the proposed action, sediment facility alternatives, pipeline route alternatives for raw water and treated water pipelines, and power upgrade alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion proposal would prevent continued depletion of the aquifer in the Buckman areas and the flows of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The city would no longer be required to offset depletions with releases of San Juan-Chama water into the Rio Grande and by retiring native water rights owned by the city with respect to the Rio Grande and two of its tributaries. Projected water demand would be satisfied. In addition, road improvements would enhance transportation management in the area. Depressed groundwater levels near the Buckman diversion sites would rebound over a time period of several decades, possibly as much as 100 feet in some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 59 acres would be affected permanently due to the improvements to Buckman Road, construction of the diversion structure, sediment facility booster stations, water treatment plants, and associated infrastructure. Work areas would cover a total of 247 acres, potentially affecting 16 species of federally protected species, including the Rio Grande silvery minnow downstream of the project. Some less mobile reptile species, amphibians, and small mammals would suffer direct mortality. The project infrastructure would permanently displace predator hunting areas. Increased noise levels would also affect wildlife. Special use and rights-of-way permits would need to be issued. The construction and operation of the new Public Service Company of New Mexico substation near the municipal recreation complex would displace two acres of grazing land from one grazing ease, resulting in a slight loss of livestock forage. The average flow of the Rio Grande would decline by less than one percent, most of which will be imported into the Rio Grande from the inner-basin San-Juan Chama Project. The county would be required to acquire water rights in order to use the diversion fully, and Las Campanas would be required to extend their lease rights. Structures in the historic town of Buckman and the Delver and Rio Grande railroad corridor would be physically disturbed by the sediment facility. During coffer dam construction and demolition, downstream areas of the Rio Grande would experience turbidity. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by the presence of facilities, as might sacred Native American sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040574, 212 pages, December 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-61
KW  - Birds
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Santa Fe National Forest
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343063?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTE+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTE+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Espanola, New Mexico; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MENDOTA POOL 10-YEAR EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (EIS NUMBER 01-81).
AN  - 36437149; 11305
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water rights exchange between the Mendota Pool Group (MPG) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation) in Fresno County, California is proposed to facilitate the efficient delivery and relocation of water in relation to the Central Valley Project (CVP). The CVP is administered by Reclamation. The proposed exchange is the result of discussions conducted since the early 1990s and includes a baseline pumping program, design constraints, monitoring program, and an adaptive management approach. Since 1989, water supplies to CVP agricultural users have been drastically reduced in a mandatory effort to balance the competing non-agricultural benefits. Between 1980 and 1989, water deliveries to the Wetlands Water District (WWD) averaged 103 percent of the WWD entitlements. However, since that time deliveries have averaged 63.8 percent. This reduction in deliveries from the CVP has forced agricultural users to obtain a large portion of their water requirements from supplemental sources such as groundwater. Groundwater has long been an important water source for farmers within the service area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater levels, land subsidence, groundwater quality, surface water quality, sediment quality, and biological resources. Six other resource areas are also evaluated. Under the proposed action, the MPG would pump non-CVP groundwater from their wells into the Mendota Pool in exchange for water from the CVP. The exchanged water would be delivered to land owned by MPG members elsewhere within the CVP service area. Up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per would be exchanged over a 10-year period. The proposed action would involve the exchange of up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year over a 10-year period between the two parties. Two No Action Alternatives, which would assume that Reclamation does not allow the proposed exchange, are also considered in this final EIS. Cost of implementing the 10-year plan is estimated at $19.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The exchange would facilitate improvements in the reliability of irrigation water delivery to the San Luis Canal without affecting CVP water deliveries at Mendota Pool. The proposed action would offset cutbacks in CVP irrigation water supplies and provide for a more balanced distribution of water among competing users. Agricultural use of the 50,000 acres of farmland owned by the MPG group would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in significant cumulative impacts on groundwater quality west of and adjacent to the Mendota Pool. As a result, wells in this area would be degraded. These wells are primarily MPG facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (34 U.S.C. 3408(d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0348D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040566, 471 pages and maps, December 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-46
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project
KW  - San Luis Canal
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437149?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENDOTA+POOL+10-YEAR+EXCHANGE+AGREEMENTS%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28EIS+NUMBER+01-81%29.&rft.title=MENDOTA+POOL+10-YEAR+EXCHANGE+AGREEMENTS%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28EIS+NUMBER+01-81%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WEST SAN JOANQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT, LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE SAN LUIS UNIT OF THE WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS THE CITIES OF AVENAL, COALINGA, AND HURON, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36435154; 11304
AB  - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term service contract for the San Luis Unit of the West San Joaquin Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP), Fresno, Kings, and Merced countries, California, and the cities of Avenal, Coalinga, and Huron. In October 1992, the President signed into law the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act, which included Title XXXIV of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVPIA a reasonable balance among competing demands for use for the use of CVP water, including requirements of fish and wildlife and agricultural, municipal and industrial, and power contractors. Through the CVPIA, the Bureau of Reclamation is developing policies and programs to improvement of environmental conditions that were affected by the operation and maintenance of physical facilities of the CVP. The CVPIA also includes tools to facilitate larger efforts in California to improve environmental conditions in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay-Delta system. Section 3404(c) of the CVPAI directs the Secretary of the Interior to renew existing CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion of a programmatic EIS and other needed documentation. The upper limit for long-term irrigation repayment and water service contracts will be 25 years. However, Section 3404(c) did not amend the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Projects Act, providing for terms of up to 40 years. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The renewed contracts and assured payment of the existing contracts would ensure a steady supply of clean water for municipal and industrial water uses and irrigation, while protecting the environment of the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Delta. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: No potentially significant impacts have been identified that could result from the renewal of San Luis Unit long-term water service and repayment of contracts. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575); Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 42 U.S>c. 7491 et seq.); Executive Orders 11988, 11990, 12898, 28989, 13077, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040565, 782 pages and maps, December 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-60
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project
KW  - San Francisco Bay
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435154?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=497&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MENDOTA POOL 10-YEAR EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (EIS NUMBER 01-81). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - MENDOTA POOL 10-YEAR EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (EIS NUMBER 01-81).
AN  - 36370096; 11305-040566_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water rights exchange between the Mendota Pool Group (MPG) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation) in Fresno County, California is proposed to facilitate the efficient delivery and relocation of water in relation to the Central Valley Project (CVP). The CVP is administered by Reclamation. The proposed exchange is the result of discussions conducted since the early 1990s and includes a baseline pumping program, design constraints, monitoring program, and an adaptive management approach. Since 1989, water supplies to CVP agricultural users have been drastically reduced in a mandatory effort to balance the competing non-agricultural benefits. Between 1980 and 1989, water deliveries to the Wetlands Water District (WWD) averaged 103 percent of the WWD entitlements. However, since that time deliveries have averaged 63.8 percent. This reduction in deliveries from the CVP has forced agricultural users to obtain a large portion of their water requirements from supplemental sources such as groundwater. Groundwater has long been an important water source for farmers within the service area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater levels, land subsidence, groundwater quality, surface water quality, sediment quality, and biological resources. Six other resource areas are also evaluated. Under the proposed action, the MPG would pump non-CVP groundwater from their wells into the Mendota Pool in exchange for water from the CVP. The exchanged water would be delivered to land owned by MPG members elsewhere within the CVP service area. Up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per would be exchanged over a 10-year period. The proposed action would involve the exchange of up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year over a 10-year period between the two parties. Two No Action Alternatives, which would assume that Reclamation does not allow the proposed exchange, are also considered in this final EIS. Cost of implementing the 10-year plan is estimated at $19.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The exchange would facilitate improvements in the reliability of irrigation water delivery to the San Luis Canal without affecting CVP water deliveries at Mendota Pool. The proposed action would offset cutbacks in CVP irrigation water supplies and provide for a more balanced distribution of water among competing users. Agricultural use of the 50,000 acres of farmland owned by the MPG group would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in significant cumulative impacts on groundwater quality west of and adjacent to the Mendota Pool. As a result, wells in this area would be degraded. These wells are primarily MPG facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (34 U.S.C. 3408(d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0348D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040566, 471 pages and maps, December 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-46
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project
KW  - San Luis Canal
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370096?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENDOTA+POOL+10-YEAR+EXCHANGE+AGREEMENTS%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28EIS+NUMBER+01-81%29.&rft.title=MENDOTA+POOL+10-YEAR+EXCHANGE+AGREEMENTS%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28EIS+NUMBER+01-81%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WEST SAN JOANQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT, LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE SAN LUIS UNIT OF THE WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS THE CITIES OF AVENAL, COALINGA, AND HURON, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WEST SAN JOANQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT, LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE SAN LUIS UNIT OF THE WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS THE CITIES OF AVENAL, COALINGA, AND HURON, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36365222; 11304-040565_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term service contract for the San Luis Unit of the West San Joaquin Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP), Fresno, Kings, and Merced countries, California, and the cities of Avenal, Coalinga, and Huron. In October 1992, the President signed into law the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act, which included Title XXXIV of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVPIA a reasonable balance among competing demands for use for the use of CVP water, including requirements of fish and wildlife and agricultural, municipal and industrial, and power contractors. Through the CVPIA, the Bureau of Reclamation is developing policies and programs to improvement of environmental conditions that were affected by the operation and maintenance of physical facilities of the CVP. The CVPIA also includes tools to facilitate larger efforts in California to improve environmental conditions in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay-Delta system. Section 3404(c) of the CVPAI directs the Secretary of the Interior to renew existing CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion of a programmatic EIS and other needed documentation. The upper limit for long-term irrigation repayment and water service contracts will be 25 years. However, Section 3404(c) did not amend the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Projects Act, providing for terms of up to 40 years. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The renewed contracts and assured payment of the existing contracts would ensure a steady supply of clean water for municipal and industrial water uses and irrigation, while protecting the environment of the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Delta. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: No potentially significant impacts have been identified that could result from the renewal of San Luis Unit long-term water service and repayment of contracts. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575); Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 42 U.S>c. 7491 et seq.); Executive Orders 11988, 11990, 12898, 28989, 13077, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040565, 782 pages and maps, December 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-60
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project
KW  - San Francisco Bay
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365222?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Geologic%2C+Geophysical%2C+and+Seismic+Characterization+of+the+Luttrell+Pit+as+a+Mine-Waste+Repository&rft.au=Smith%2C+Bruce+D%3BMcDougal%2C+Robert+R%3BLund%2C+Karen&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Bruce&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=477&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RAWLINS RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN, ALBANY, LARMAIE, AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, SOUTH-CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - RAWLINS RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN, ALBANY, LARMAIE, AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, SOUTH-CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING.
AN  - 36367536; 11320-040583_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of a general land and resource management plan for the Rawlins Resource Management Area, Albany, Laramie, and Sweetwater counties, south central and southwestern Wyoming is proposed. The planning area comprises approximately 11.2 million acres. Within the area, the Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 100,000 acres of public land surface and land surface where the mineral estate is private, and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate where the surface is privately owned or owned by the state of Wyoming. The plan would focus primarily on eight resource management issues, specifically, development of energy resources and minerals, special management designations, resource accessibility, the wildland-urban interface, special status species, water quality, vegetation management, and recreational, cultural, and paleontological resources. Four alternative, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize development of resources. Alternative 3 would emphasize the protection of resources. Alternative 4, a combination of the other alternatives, is the preferred alternative, with a focus on conservation of resources. The preferred alternative would provide for opportunities to use and development resources within the planning area, with a focus on conservation of resources. The guidance that would emphasize neither resource use nor resource orotection. Alternatives are compared on the basis of management goals and management actions with respect to air quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels management, forestry, land and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, off-highway vehicle use, paleontological resources, recreational resources, special management areas, transportation and access management, vegetation resources, water quality, watersheds, soils, wild horse management, and wildlife and fish habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for access to minerals, other energy resources, rangeland resources, and recreational resources, while protecting cultural and historic resources, paleontological resources, natural resources, particularly wetlands, riparian habitat, and other habitat types. Development of mineral resources, recreational resources would expand employment rolls dramatically in the planning area, maintain jobs, and provide revenues for local governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management practices and the development of natural and recreational resources, particularly mineral resources and energy resources would result in impacts to air and water quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels hazards, forested land, land tenure, livestock grazing, minerals, geology, typography, erosion, paleontologic resources, recreation resources, special management areas, including wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, transportation and access, vegetation and the associated wildlife and fish habitat, visual aesthetics, watershed quality and soils, wild horse populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040583, Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, December, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Storage
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Rawlins Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367536?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=461&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RAWLINS RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN, ALBANY, LARMAIE, AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, SOUTH-CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - RAWLINS RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN, ALBANY, LARMAIE, AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, SOUTH-CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING.
AN  - 36365537; 11320-040583_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of a general land and resource management plan for the Rawlins Resource Management Area, Albany, Laramie, and Sweetwater counties, south central and southwestern Wyoming is proposed. The planning area comprises approximately 11.2 million acres. Within the area, the Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 100,000 acres of public land surface and land surface where the mineral estate is private, and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate where the surface is privately owned or owned by the state of Wyoming. The plan would focus primarily on eight resource management issues, specifically, development of energy resources and minerals, special management designations, resource accessibility, the wildland-urban interface, special status species, water quality, vegetation management, and recreational, cultural, and paleontological resources. Four alternative, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize development of resources. Alternative 3 would emphasize the protection of resources. Alternative 4, a combination of the other alternatives, is the preferred alternative, with a focus on conservation of resources. The preferred alternative would provide for opportunities to use and development resources within the planning area, with a focus on conservation of resources. The guidance that would emphasize neither resource use nor resource orotection. Alternatives are compared on the basis of management goals and management actions with respect to air quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels management, forestry, land and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, off-highway vehicle use, paleontological resources, recreational resources, special management areas, transportation and access management, vegetation resources, water quality, watersheds, soils, wild horse management, and wildlife and fish habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for access to minerals, other energy resources, rangeland resources, and recreational resources, while protecting cultural and historic resources, paleontological resources, natural resources, particularly wetlands, riparian habitat, and other habitat types. Development of mineral resources, recreational resources would expand employment rolls dramatically in the planning area, maintain jobs, and provide revenues for local governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management practices and the development of natural and recreational resources, particularly mineral resources and energy resources would result in impacts to air and water quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels hazards, forested land, land tenure, livestock grazing, minerals, geology, typography, erosion, paleontologic resources, recreation resources, special management areas, including wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, transportation and access, vegetation and the associated wildlife and fish habitat, visual aesthetics, watershed quality and soils, wild horse populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040583, Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, December, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Storage
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Rawlins Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365537?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RAWLINS+RESOURCE+MANGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALBANY%2C+LARMAIE%2C+AND+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH-CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHWESTERN+WYOMING.&rft.title=RAWLINS+RESOURCE+MANGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALBANY%2C+LARMAIE%2C+AND+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH-CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHWESTERN+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Upper Gila river fluvial geomorphology study: Final report arizona
AN  - 20990367; 7322182
AB  - The Stream Corridor Assessment synthesizes findings of the Background Information report, Catalog of Historical Changes, Flood Frequency and Flow Duration Analyses report, Geomorphic Map, Geomorphic Analysis, and Stable Channel Analysis. Combined, these studies provide a framework for understanding the physical processes that shape the Gila River upstream of the San Carlos Reservation. The Background Information report is an annotated bibliography of the fluvial geomorphology of the Upper Gila River. The Catalog of Flistorical Changes traces changes in the Gila River plan form from 1935 to 2000. Flood Frequency and Flow Duration Analyses analyze historical stream flow and rainfall data for trends. The Geomorphic Map and Geomorphic Analysis analyze the fluvial geomorphic changes in the river and determine causative factors for the changes. The Geomorphic Map and Geomorphic Analysis also document major historical geomorphic change along the river primarily related to the construction and subsequent failure of levees, the construction of diversion dams, bridges, and to a lesser degree, the influence of native and invasive riparian vegetation. The Stable Channel Analysis forms a quantitative basis for understanding Gila River sediment transport and channel stability. When combined, these studies cover historical changes in river plan form, historical trends in hydrology, historical and pre-historical sediment flux from the upstream drainage basin, the causes of major historical geomorphic change along the river, and channel stability and sediment transport.
JF  - Upper Gila River Fluvial Geomorphology Study Final Report. p. v. Dec 2004.
AU  - Wittier, R T
AU  - Klawon, JE
Y1  - 2004/12//
PY  - 2004
DA  - December 2004
SP  - 1
EP  - v
PB  - U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation USA
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - Fluvial Sediments
KW  - Catalogues
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Dam Construction
KW  - Frequency analysis
KW  - Geomorphology
KW  - Floods
KW  - Dams
KW  - Coastal morphology
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Sediment transport
KW  - Stable Channels
KW  - Sedimentation
KW  - USA, Arizona, Gila R.
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Fluvial morphology
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Levees
KW  - Gila
KW  - River basins
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Channels
KW  - Sediment-water interface
KW  - Bibliographies
KW  - Flow Duration
KW  - USA, Arizona
KW  - Riparian vegetation
KW  - Flood Frequency
KW  - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20990367?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Understanding+Trace-Element+Sources+and+Transport+to+Upper+Basin+Creek+in+the+Vicinity+of+the+Buckeye+and+Enterprise+Mines&rft.au=Cannon%2C+M+R%3BChurch%2C+Stanley+E%3BFey%2C+David+L%3BMcDougal%2C+Robert+R%3BSmith%2C+Bruce+D%3BNimick%2C+David+A&rft.aulast=Cannon&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=407&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Investigation of the Lake Plant Pump Station - Lower Colorado River Authority
AN  - 19399119; 6196836
AB  - Investigations of the Lake Plant Pump Station were carried out by Reclamation for the Lower Colorado River Authority. A review of the plant design and layout was completed for compliance with the ANSI Hydraulic Institute Standards for Pumps. A 3-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of a single pump can was created using Flow Science, Inc.'s Flow-3D. The original design was modeled as well as a final design based on the HI review and results from the model run with the initial design. Final can design details are presented that will provide improved flow conditions into the pump bell, lessening the chance of future pump-performance problems.
JF  - Hydraulic Laboratory Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
AU  - Higgs, James
AU  - Frizell, KWarren
Y1  - 2004/12//
PY  - 2004
DA  - Dec 2004
SP  - 28
PB  - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
KW  - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Q2 02281:General
KW  - SW 6030:Hydraulic machinery
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19399119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Higgs%2C+James%3BFrizell%2C+KWarren&rft.aulast=Higgs&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2004-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=373&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-13
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydraulic Model Study of the Enlarged Outlets at Folsom Dam: 1:17 Scale Sectional Model
AN  - 17329701; 6196837
AB  - A 1:17 scale physical sectional model of the enlarged outlet works at Folsom Dam was built and tested at Reclamation's Water Resources Research Laboratory in Denver Colorado. This model featured detailed representations of the upper (9.33-ft by 14-ft) and lower (9.33-ft by 12-ft) enlarged gate designs (by Reclamation) along with hydraulic features including air vents and manifolds, intakes and conduits for the new larger gates (by COE) a 50-ft-wide section of spillway, and an 85-ft-wide section of stilling basin (both existing).
JF  - Hydraulic Laboratory Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
AU  - Frizell, KWarren
Y1  - 2004/12//
PY  - 2004
DA  - Dec 2004
SP  - 80
PB  - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
KW  - Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17329701?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Frizell%2C+KWarren&rft.aulast=Frizell&rft.aufirst=KWarren&rft.date=2004-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=80&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydraulic+Model+Study+of+the+Enlarged+Outlets+at+Folsom+Dam%3A+1%3A17+Scale+Sectional+Model&rft.title=Hydraulic+Model+Study+of+the+Enlarged+Outlets+at+Folsom+Dam%3A+1%3A17+Scale+Sectional+Model&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-12-01
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-13
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Roza Fish Screens Facility: Velocity Measurements at a High Canal Flow Rate
AN  - 17314958; 6196835
AB  - A hydraulic evaluation was conducted in August 2004 at the Roza Fish Screens Facility at a high canal diversion rate of 1911 cfs. The primary objective of this evaluation was to determine whether primary bypass flow rates can be reduced from the recommended operating criteria of 65 cfs to 50 cfs during high canal diversion operations while maintaining drum screen velocity criteria. For both operational bypass conditions, approach and sweep velocities were measured near drum screens in two bays at five vertical locations and seven lateral locations per screen. Velocity data were analyzed for compliance with facility design criteria and federal fish protection criteria. Field weir ratings were developed for the full range of primary bypass weir operations. In the final bypass channel, bypass flow rates were measured for two operational water surface elevations in the secondary screening facility.
JF  - Hydraulic Laboratory Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
AU  - Connie, DeMoyer
Y1  - 2004/12//
PY  - 2004
DA  - Dec 2004
SP  - 58
PB  - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
KW  - fish passages
KW  - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Q5 01522:Protective measures and control
KW  - SW 6090:Fisheries engineering
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17314958?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Hydrogeology+of+the+Boulder+River+Watershed+Study+Area+and+Examination+of+the+Regional+Ground-Water+Flow+System+Using+Interpreted+Fracture+Mapping+from+Remote+Sensing+Data&rft.au=McDougal%2C+Robert+R%3BCannon%2C+M+R%3BSmith%2C+Bruce+D%3BRuppert%2C+David+A&rft.aulast=McDougal&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=341&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-03-01
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-13
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RAWLINS RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN, ALBANY, LARMAIE, AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, SOUTH-CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING.
AN  - 16346398; 11320
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of a general land and resource management plan for the Rawlins Resource Management Area, Albany, Laramie, and Sweetwater counties, south central and southwestern Wyoming is proposed. The planning area comprises approximately 11.2 million acres. Within the area, the Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 100,000 acres of public land surface and land surface where the mineral estate is private, and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate where the surface is privately owned or owned by the state of Wyoming. The plan would focus primarily on eight resource management issues, specifically, development of energy resources and minerals, special management designations, resource accessibility, the wildland-urban interface, special status species, water quality, vegetation management, and recreational, cultural, and paleontological resources. Four alternative, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize development of resources. Alternative 3 would emphasize the protection of resources. Alternative 4, a combination of the other alternatives, is the preferred alternative, with a focus on conservation of resources. The preferred alternative would provide for opportunities to use and development resources within the planning area, with a focus on conservation of resources. The guidance that would emphasize neither resource use nor resource orotection. Alternatives are compared on the basis of management goals and management actions with respect to air quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels management, forestry, land and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, off-highway vehicle use, paleontological resources, recreational resources, special management areas, transportation and access management, vegetation resources, water quality, watersheds, soils, wild horse management, and wildlife and fish habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for access to minerals, other energy resources, rangeland resources, and recreational resources, while protecting cultural and historic resources, paleontological resources, natural resources, particularly wetlands, riparian habitat, and other habitat types. Development of mineral resources, recreational resources would expand employment rolls dramatically in the planning area, maintain jobs, and provide revenues for local governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management practices and the development of natural and recreational resources, particularly mineral resources and energy resources would result in impacts to air and water quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels hazards, forested land, land tenure, livestock grazing, minerals, geology, typography, erosion, paleontologic resources, recreation resources, special management areas, including wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, transportation and access, vegetation and the associated wildlife and fish habitat, visual aesthetics, watershed quality and soils, wild horse populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040583, Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, December, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Storage
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Rawlins Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346398?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Stanley&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=283&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36440219; 11294
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk counties, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this draft EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would include stipulations, preventing surface use on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 135 acres of bird hot spots, and 52,172 acre of hunting areas, and up to 46,273 acres of Surface Management Areas (SMAs). Affected areas would be reclaimed. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 93-439, as amended.
JF  - EPA number: 040555, 526 and maps, November 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-56
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Big Thicket National Preserve
KW  - Texas
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440219?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sante Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36368134; 11294-040555_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk counties, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this draft EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would include stipulations, preventing surface use on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 135 acres of bird hot spots, and 52,172 acre of hunting areas, and up to 46,273 acres of Surface Management Areas (SMAs). Affected areas would be reclaimed. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 93-439, as amended.
JF  - EPA number: 040555, 526 and maps, November 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-56
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Big Thicket National Preserve
KW  - Texas
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368134?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sante Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36440782; 11285
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for the Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona is proposed. Most of the 11,985-acre monument has been designated as wilderness. Tree ring studies demonstrate that that widespread fires were once frequent events in the Chiricahua Mountains; the fire season takes place annual with the onset of the summer monsoon season and accompanying lightning. Fire suppression during the last century seems to have altered plant communities, and the changes in the structure and composition of vegetation communities probably affected wildlife. Fuels have accumulated in the absence of fire, increasing the risk of wildland fires that could cause extensive damage. Some fire management began in the monument in the 1970s, but these efforts have been limited. Objectives identified during scoping include those related to the human health and safety; the qualifications of fire control personnel; the reduction of fuels that could adversely affect park developments, cultural resources, and ecologically sensitive areas; designation of a resource advisor to an fire with the potential to adversely affect sensitive resources; minimization of unacceptable impacts of wildland fire suppression on natural and cultural resources through burned area rehabilitation where appropriate; and the development of burn prescriptions and objectives to minimize unacceptable impacts of prescribed fire on natural and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative would allow wildland fire use only in a small fire management unit in the center of the park. Alternative A would allow wildland fire use throughout the park backcountry areas and call for automatic suppression only in a canyon-bottom corridor that contains almost all park developments and burnable historic structures. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would push the boundaries of the management area out to natural watershed limits at the Coronado National Forest boundary on the north, East, and south sides. Under Alternative B, the Coronado National Forest would act as an active partner, and the monument's prescribed burn complexes cover ZOC on national forest land. Wildland fire use would also be permitted out to zone boundaries. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new FMP would incorporate recent policies and advances in fire research and operations. Allowing low- to moderate-intensity fire to burn over more areas could reduce the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires to a greater degree than the other alternatives. Expanding the burnable area and the flexibility of burn conditions would move resources to more routine fire events rather than forcing the investment at resources in high cost suppression of widespread, high-intensity fires. Over the long-term, the FMP would reduce fire risk, assist the reproduction of fire-tolerant plant species, and renew habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The FMP would result in some short-term, minor adverse impacts, such as inconvenience to visitors, discouragement of tourism, disturbance of cultural resources, the loss of individual plants and animals and their habitat, changes to the character of unique sites and wilderness, increases in erosion, and degradation of air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 040546, 164 pages, November 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fire Protection
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Chiricahua National Monument
KW  - Coronado National Forest
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440782?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=197&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Willcox, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36435003; 11286
AB  - PURPOSE: The continued closure of Folsom Dam Road cross the American River in California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation indefinitely closed Folsom Dam Road for security reasons on February 28, 2003, to preserve and protect the core mission of the dam and reservoir and to assure the ultimate safety of the public downstream of the facility. The closure followed a series of security reviews, including a final review conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and subsequent full-scale analysis and evaluation of the agency's recommendations the evaluation determined that continued uncontrolled access along Folsom Dam Road presented a security risk to the facility and the public. Prior to its closure, Folsom Dam Road served as one of the three key routes across the American River water bodies of Lake Natoma and Folsom Lake. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would reopen the road to public use, are considered in this draft EIS. Two alternatives would involve restricted or controlled access across the road. The preferred alternative would maintain closure of the road indefinitely. Also evaluated with respect to future cumulative conditions of the preferred alternative is the construction of a new bridge parallel to and below the Folsom Dam Road, which, if completed, would carry much of the traffic that formerly crossed the dam road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Road closure would ensure the safety of the dam against terrorist attack, protecting the public, as well as land and structures, downstream of the dam from devastating flooding. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued closure of the road would significantly restrict access across the river, increasing already significant congestion on both sides of the reservoir and, in some cases, preventing the movement of goods and people.
JF  - EPA number: 040547, 166 pages and maps, November 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-58
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - California
KW  - American River
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435003?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROAN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (INCLUDING FORMER NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES NUMBERS 1 AND 3) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, GARFIELD AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36434871; 11287
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1984 resource management plan (RMP) for the 73,602-acre Roan Plateau Planning Area of Garfield and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area includes formal Naval Oil Shale Reserves Numbers 1 and 2. The planning area lies north of Interstate 70 between the towns of Rifle and Parachute and includes three ecosystem types, namely, dry semi-desert habitat, mesic montane and sub-alpine habitat, and high and mostly unbroken cliffs. The existing RMP has been amended five times since its adoption. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural gas resources, wilderness characteristics, livestock grazing, hunting, wildlife habitat, ecological values, visual resources and scenic areas, recreation, transportation planning wild and scenic river eligibility and special management areas designation. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the existing RMP, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives II through V present differing balances of land se allocations. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative III), the two drainage-based areas of critical environmental concern, North-water Creek and East Fork Parachute Creek, would be designated to include primarily the floors of the major drainages. The 29,000-acre Parachute Creek watershed, atop the plateau, would be designated as part of the Parachute Creek Watershed Management Area. Protection of river segments found eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers would continue pending the conclusion of a suitability study. Resource protection goals would be achieved by applying no ground disturbance and/or site-specific relocation restrictions to more than 60,000 acres as well as five-month timing limitation applied to deer and elk winter range. Rivers would continue pending a suitability study. Roadlessness and naturalness would be protected on 9,006 acres. Motorized and mechanized travel would be restricted to designated routes. The leasing and drilling for oil and gas on nearly 35,000 acres above the rim would be deferred until 80 percent of the anticipated wells below the rim have been completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would cover the full array of multiple-use activities, including mineral leasing, while maintaining key ecological, visual and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor to moderate impacts would be expected to affect vegetation, fish and wildlife (including special status species), visual resources, recreation and travel opportunities, and livestock grazing. Minor impacts would be expected to affect soils, surface water quality, air quality, and cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Defense Authorization Act, Transfer Act (P.L. 105-85), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040548, 522 pages, November 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Roan Plateau Planning Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Defense Authorization Act, Project Authorization of 1998
KW  - Transfer Act, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434871?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Trace+Elements+in+Water+in+Streams+Affected+by+Historical+Mining&rft.au=Nimick%2C+David+A%3BCleasby%2C+Thomas+E&rft.aulast=Nimick&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=159&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368616; 11286-040547_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The continued closure of Folsom Dam Road cross the American River in California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation indefinitely closed Folsom Dam Road for security reasons on February 28, 2003, to preserve and protect the core mission of the dam and reservoir and to assure the ultimate safety of the public downstream of the facility. The closure followed a series of security reviews, including a final review conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and subsequent full-scale analysis and evaluation of the agency's recommendations the evaluation determined that continued uncontrolled access along Folsom Dam Road presented a security risk to the facility and the public. Prior to its closure, Folsom Dam Road served as one of the three key routes across the American River water bodies of Lake Natoma and Folsom Lake. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would reopen the road to public use, are considered in this draft EIS. Two alternatives would involve restricted or controlled access across the road. The preferred alternative would maintain closure of the road indefinitely. Also evaluated with respect to future cumulative conditions of the preferred alternative is the construction of a new bridge parallel to and below the Folsom Dam Road, which, if completed, would carry much of the traffic that formerly crossed the dam road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Road closure would ensure the safety of the dam against terrorist attack, protecting the public, as well as land and structures, downstream of the dam from devastating flooding. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued closure of the road would significantly restrict access across the river, increasing already significant congestion on both sides of the reservoir and, in some cases, preventing the movement of goods and people.
JF  - EPA number: 040547, 166 pages and maps, November 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-58
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - California
KW  - American River
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368616?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=139&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36368587; 11285-040546_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for the Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona is proposed. Most of the 11,985-acre monument has been designated as wilderness. Tree ring studies demonstrate that that widespread fires were once frequent events in the Chiricahua Mountains; the fire season takes place annual with the onset of the summer monsoon season and accompanying lightning. Fire suppression during the last century seems to have altered plant communities, and the changes in the structure and composition of vegetation communities probably affected wildlife. Fuels have accumulated in the absence of fire, increasing the risk of wildland fires that could cause extensive damage. Some fire management began in the monument in the 1970s, but these efforts have been limited. Objectives identified during scoping include those related to the human health and safety; the qualifications of fire control personnel; the reduction of fuels that could adversely affect park developments, cultural resources, and ecologically sensitive areas; designation of a resource advisor to an fire with the potential to adversely affect sensitive resources; minimization of unacceptable impacts of wildland fire suppression on natural and cultural resources through burned area rehabilitation where appropriate; and the development of burn prescriptions and objectives to minimize unacceptable impacts of prescribed fire on natural and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative would allow wildland fire use only in a small fire management unit in the center of the park. Alternative A would allow wildland fire use throughout the park backcountry areas and call for automatic suppression only in a canyon-bottom corridor that contains almost all park developments and burnable historic structures. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would push the boundaries of the management area out to natural watershed limits at the Coronado National Forest boundary on the north, East, and south sides. Under Alternative B, the Coronado National Forest would act as an active partner, and the monument's prescribed burn complexes cover ZOC on national forest land. Wildland fire use would also be permitted out to zone boundaries. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new FMP would incorporate recent policies and advances in fire research and operations. Allowing low- to moderate-intensity fire to burn over more areas could reduce the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires to a greater degree than the other alternatives. Expanding the burnable area and the flexibility of burn conditions would move resources to more routine fire events rather than forcing the investment at resources in high cost suppression of widespread, high-intensity fires. Over the long-term, the FMP would reduce fire risk, assist the reproduction of fire-tolerant plant species, and renew habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The FMP would result in some short-term, minor adverse impacts, such as inconvenience to visitors, discouragement of tourism, disturbance of cultural resources, the loss of individual plants and animals and their habitat, changes to the character of unique sites and wilderness, increases in erosion, and degradation of air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 040546, 164 pages, November 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fire Protection
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Chiricahua National Monument
KW  - Coronado National Forest
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368587?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CHIRICAHUA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CHIRICAHUA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Willcox, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROAN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (INCLUDING FORMER NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES NUMBERS 1 AND 3) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, GARFIELD AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ROAN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (INCLUDING FORMER NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES NUMBERS 1 AND 3) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, GARFIELD AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36368037; 11287-040548_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1984 resource management plan (RMP) for the 73,602-acre Roan Plateau Planning Area of Garfield and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area includes formal Naval Oil Shale Reserves Numbers 1 and 2. The planning area lies north of Interstate 70 between the towns of Rifle and Parachute and includes three ecosystem types, namely, dry semi-desert habitat, mesic montane and sub-alpine habitat, and high and mostly unbroken cliffs. The existing RMP has been amended five times since its adoption. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural gas resources, wilderness characteristics, livestock grazing, hunting, wildlife habitat, ecological values, visual resources and scenic areas, recreation, transportation planning wild and scenic river eligibility and special management areas designation. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the existing RMP, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives II through V present differing balances of land se allocations. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative III), the two drainage-based areas of critical environmental concern, North-water Creek and East Fork Parachute Creek, would be designated to include primarily the floors of the major drainages. The 29,000-acre Parachute Creek watershed, atop the plateau, would be designated as part of the Parachute Creek Watershed Management Area. Protection of river segments found eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers would continue pending the conclusion of a suitability study. Resource protection goals would be achieved by applying no ground disturbance and/or site-specific relocation restrictions to more than 60,000 acres as well as five-month timing limitation applied to deer and elk winter range. Rivers would continue pending a suitability study. Roadlessness and naturalness would be protected on 9,006 acres. Motorized and mechanized travel would be restricted to designated routes. The leasing and drilling for oil and gas on nearly 35,000 acres above the rim would be deferred until 80 percent of the anticipated wells below the rim have been completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would cover the full array of multiple-use activities, including mineral leasing, while maintaining key ecological, visual and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor to moderate impacts would be expected to affect vegetation, fish and wildlife (including special status species), visual resources, recreation and travel opportunities, and livestock grazing. Minor impacts would be expected to affect soils, surface water quality, air quality, and cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Defense Authorization Act, Transfer Act (P.L. 105-85), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040548, 522 pages, November 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Roan Plateau Planning Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Defense Authorization Act, Project Authorization of 1998
KW  - Transfer Act, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368037?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Geologic+Framework%2C+Geophysical+Characterization+of+Geologic+Features+with+Environmental+Implications+from+Airborne+Magnetic+and+Apparent+Resistivity+Data%2C+Mine+Inventory&rft.au=O%27Neill%2C+JMichael%3BLunf%2C+Karen%3BVan+Gosen%2C+Bradley+S%3BDesborough%2C+George+A%3BSole%2C+Tracy+C%3BDeWitt%2C+Ed+H%3BMcCafferty%2C+Anne+E&rft.aulast=O%27Neill&rft.aufirst=JMichael&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=49&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EASTERN CORRIDOR MULTI-MODAL PROJECTS, HAMILTON AND CLERMONT COUNTIES, OHIO.
AN  - 36412507; 11726
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-modal improvements in the corridor extending between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs in Hamilton and Clermont counties, Ohio is proposed. The Eastern Corridor is currently characterized by an inadequate transportation network burdened by increasing demand. This detailed Tier 1 study area covers 14 square miles in the eastern sector of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, extending from downtown Cincinnati east to the Interstate 275 (I-275) outerbelt in Clermont County. The project is being implemented using a two-tiered environmental review process. The Tier 1 work, which is the subject of this final EIS, identifies feasible alternatives for different multi-modal components, including ranges of preliminary impacts and costs, to be carried through to Tier 2 for detailed study. Feasible alternatives identified during Tier 1 consist of general location and operation corridors. Multi-modal alternatives include various transportation system management actions (including new bike and pedestrian trails following existing transportation routes or on new alignments), improved bus transit (including expanded bus routes, new community circulators, feeder routes to compliment rail transit, and new bus hubs), new rail transit extending from downtown Cincinnati to Milford, and new highway capacity from Red Bank Road at I-71 to State Route 32/I-275 in the Eastgate area of Clermont County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ultimate multi-modal plan to be implemented would provide for an integrated system of automobile, bus, and transit movement of people and goods. Existing capacity insufficiencies would be eliminated or improved significantly The program would provide adequate linkage and mobility via the region's key transportation corridors to promote social and economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Primary impact concerns identified in this Tier 1 document include potential residential and business relocations, crossing of the Little Miami River (a state-administered component of the National Wild and Scenic River System), possible encroachment on parkland, and possible impacts to several historic districts included in the National Register of Historic Places as well as other cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0244D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 050447, 177 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-02-F
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Parks
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Little Miami River
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=31&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 77 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36370428; 11248-040529_0077
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 77
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370428?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 73 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36370375; 11248-040529_0073
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 73
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370375?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Summary+and+Conclusions+from+Investigation+of+the+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Bouler+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 60 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36370217; 11248-040529_0060
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 60
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370217?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1682&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 24 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36370196; 11248-040529_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 24
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370196?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1265&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 37 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36370019; 11248-040529_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 37
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370019?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1254&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 74 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369991; 11248-040529_0074
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 74
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369991?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1240&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 71 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369838; 11248-040529_0071
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 71
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369838?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1239&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 28 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369766; 11248-040529_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 28
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369766?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 56 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369647; 11248-040529_0056
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 56
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369647?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 67 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369625; 11248-040529_0067
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 67
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369625?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 50 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369611; 11248-040529_0050
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 50
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369611?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 48 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369599; 11248-040529_0048
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 48
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369599?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 51 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369536; 11248-040529_0051
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 51
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369536?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft.genre=dissertations+%26+theses&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Breckenridge%2C+James+Garvin&rft.aulast=Breckenridge&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781267282903&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Organizational+learning+and+the+application+of+intelligence+processes+in+higher+education&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 66 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369488; 11248-040529_0066
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 66
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369488?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1232&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Acadian-Pontchartrain+Drainages%2C+Louisiana+and+Mississippi%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Demcheck%2C+Dennis+K%3BTollett%2C+Roland+W%3BMize%2C+Scott+V%3BSkrobialowski%2C+Stanley+C%3BFendick%2C+Robert+BJr%3BSwarzenski%2C+Christopher+M%3BPorter%2C+Stephen&rft.aulast=Demcheck&rft.aufirst=Dennis&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1232&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 63 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369453; 11248-040529_0063
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 63
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369453?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=JBrian&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1231&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 79 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369331; 11248-040529_0079
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 79
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369331?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 27 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369319; 11248-040529_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 27
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369319?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 80 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369313; 11248-040529_0080
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 80
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369313?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 59 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369306; 11248-040529_0059
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 59
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369306?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 14 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369262; 11248-040529_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369262?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 25 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369163; 11248-040529_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369163?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 33 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369162; 11248-040529_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 33
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McCarthy%2C+P+M&rft.aulast=McCarthy&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=330&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Statistical+Summaries+of+Streamflow+in+Montana+and+Adjacent+Areas%2C+Water+Years+1900+through+2002&rft.title=Statistical+Summaries+of+Streamflow+in+Montana+and+Adjacent+Areas%2C+Water+Years+1900+through+2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 15 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369084; 11248-040529_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369084?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=Water+Resources+of+Sweetwater+County%2C+Wyoming&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 3 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369040; 11248-040529_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369040?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 20 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36369008; 11248-040529_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369008?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 64 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368863; 11248-040529_0064
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 64
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368863?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 34 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368850; 11248-040529_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 34
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368850?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McPherson%2C+A+K%3BGill%2C+A+C%3BMoreland%2C+R+S&rft.aulast=McPherson&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=170&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Assessment+of+Water+Quality%2C+Benthic+Invertebrates%2C+and+Periphyton+in+the+Threemile+Creek+Basin%2C+Mobile%2C+Alabama%2C+1999-+2003&rft.title=Assessment+of+Water+Quality%2C+Benthic+Invertebrates%2C+and+Periphyton+in+the+Threemile+Creek+Basin%2C+Mobile%2C+Alabama%2C+1999-+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 75 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368764; 11248-040529_0075
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 75
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368764?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=166&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Conceptualization+and+Simulation+of+the+Edwards+Aquifer%2C+San+Antonio+Region%2C+Texas&rft.title=Conceptualization+and+Simulation+of+the+Edwards+Aquifer%2C+San+Antonio+Region%2C+Texas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 31 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368689; 11248-040529_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 31
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368689?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Questa+Baseline+and+Pre-Mining+Ground+Water+Quality+Investigation+4.+Historical+Surface-Water+Quality+for+the+Red+River+Valley%2C+New+Mexico%2C+1965-2001&rft.title=Questa+Baseline+and+Pre-Mining+Ground+Water+Quality+Investigation+4.+Historical+Surface-Water+Quality+for+the+Red+River+Valley%2C+New+Mexico%2C+1965-2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 46 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368608; 11248-040529_0046
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 46
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368608?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 72 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368548; 11248-040529_0072
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 72
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368548?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=148&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Geologic%2C+Water-Chemistry%2C+and+Hydrologic+Data+from+Multiple-+Well+Monitoring+Sites+and+Selected+Water-Supply+Wells+in+the+Santa+Clara+Valley%2C+California%2C+1999-2003&rft.title=Geologic%2C+Water-Chemistry%2C+and+Hydrologic+Data+from+Multiple-+Well+Monitoring+Sites+and+Selected+Water-Supply+Wells+in+the+Santa+Clara+Valley%2C+California%2C+1999-2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 16 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368483; 11248-040529_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368483?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Marella%2C+R+L&rft.aulast=Marella&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=146&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Withdrawals%2C+Use%2C+Discharge%2C+and+Trends+in+Florida%2C+2000&rft.title=Water+Withdrawals%2C+Use%2C+Discharge%2C+and+Trends+in+Florida%2C+2000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 41 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368474; 11248-040529_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 41
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368474?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 53 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368460; 11248-040529_0053
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 53
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368460?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 26 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368448; 11248-040529_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 26
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368448?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 65 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368445; 11248-040529_0065
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 65
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368445?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=130&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Design+and+Analysis+of+a+Natural-Gradient+Ground-Water+Tracer+Test+in+a+Freshwater+Tidal+Wetland%2C+West+Branch+Canal+Creek%2C+Aberdeen+Proving+Ground%2C+Maryland&rft.title=Design+and+Analysis+of+a+Natural-Gradient+Ground-Water+Tracer+Test+in+a+Freshwater+Tidal+Wetland%2C+West+Branch+Canal+Creek%2C+Aberdeen+Proving+Ground%2C+Maryland&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 13 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368354; 11248-040529_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368354?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=128&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Trends+in+Streamflow+Characteristics+at+Long-Term+Gaging+Stations%2C+Hawaii&rft.title=Trends+in+Streamflow+Characteristics+at+Long-Term+Gaging+Stations%2C+Hawaii&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 39 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368335; 11248-040529_0039
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 39
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368335?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 18 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368307; 11248-040529_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368307?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 35 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368292; 11248-040529_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 35
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368292?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kasmarek%2C+M+C%3BRobinson%2C+J+L&rft.aulast=Kasmarek&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=124&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrogeology+and+Simulation+of+Ground-Water+Flow+and+Land-+Surface+Subsidence+in+the+Northern+Part+of+the+Gulf+Coast+Aquifer+System%2C+Texas&rft.title=Hydrogeology+and+Simulation+of+Ground-Water+Flow+and+Land-+Surface+Subsidence+in+the+Northern+Part+of+the+Gulf+Coast+Aquifer+System%2C+Texas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 30 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368179; 11248-040529_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 30
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368179?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 17 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368150; 11248-040529_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368150?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 84 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36368055; 11248-040529_0084
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 84
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368055?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=Streamflow+and+Water-Quality+Characteristics+at+Selected+Sites+of+the+St.+Johns+River+in+Central+Florida%2C+1993-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 57 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367911; 11248-040529_0057
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 57
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367911?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 82 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367903; 11248-040529_0082
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 82
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367903?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 40 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367851; 11248-040529_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 40
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367851?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 43 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367835; 11248-040529_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 43
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367835?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Harte%2C+P+T&rft.aulast=Harte&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=102&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulation+of+Solute+Transport+of+Tetrachloroethylene+in+Ground+Water+of+the+Glacial-Drift+Aquifer+at+the+Savage+Municipal+Well+Superfund+Site%2C+Milford%2C+New+Hampshire%2C+1960-2000&rft.title=Simulation+of+Solute+Transport+of+Tetrachloroethylene+in+Ground+Water+of+the+Glacial-Drift+Aquifer+at+the+Savage+Municipal+Well+Superfund+Site%2C+Milford%2C+New+Hampshire%2C+1960-2000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 38 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367725; 11248-040529_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 38
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367725?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=102&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Effects+of+Surface+Applications+of+Biosolids+on+Soil%2C+Crops%2C+Ground+Water%2C+and+Streambed+Sediment+Near+Deer+Trail%2C+Colorado%2C+1999-2003&rft.title=Effects+of+Surface+Applications+of+Biosolids+on+Soil%2C+Crops%2C+Ground+Water%2C+and+Streambed+Sediment+Near+Deer+Trail%2C+Colorado%2C+1999-2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 12 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367661; 11248-040529_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367661?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 11 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367554; 11248-040529_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367554?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 9 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367533; 11248-040529_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367533?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 58 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367512; 11248-040529_0058
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 58
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367512?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 23 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367363; 11248-040529_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367363?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Petkewich%2C+MD%3BParkhurst%2C+D+L%3BConlon%2C+K+J%3BCampbell%2C+B+G%3BMirecki%2C+JE&rft.aulast=Petkewich&rft.aufirst=MD&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=96&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrologic+and+Geochemical+Evaluation+of+Aquifer+Storage+Recovery+in+the+Santee+Limestone%2FBlack+Mingo+Aquifer%2C+Charleston%2C+South+Carolina%2C+1998-2002&rft.title=Hydrologic+and+Geochemical+Evaluation+of+Aquifer+Storage+Recovery+in+the+Santee+Limestone%2FBlack+Mingo+Aquifer%2C+Charleston%2C+South+Carolina%2C+1998-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 22 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367347; 11248-040529_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367347?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=DA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=96&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulated+Water+Sources+and+Effects+of+Pumping+on+Surface+and+Ground+Water%2C+Sagamore+and+Monomoy+Flow+Lenses%2C+Cape+Code%2C+Massachusetts&rft.title=Simulated+Water+Sources+and+Effects+of+Pumping+on+Surface+and+Ground+Water%2C+Sagamore+and+Monomoy+Flow+Lenses%2C+Cape+Code%2C+Massachusetts&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 7 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367291; 11248-040529_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367291?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=95&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Integrated+Monitoring+of+Hydrogeomorphic%2C+Vegetative%2C+and+Edaphic+Conditions+in+Riparian+Ecosystems+of+Great+Basin+National+Park%2C+Nevada&rft.title=Integrated+Monitoring+of+Hydrogeomorphic%2C+Vegetative%2C+and+Edaphic+Conditions+in+Riparian+Ecosystems+of+Great+Basin+National+Park%2C+Nevada&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 86 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36367236; 11248-040529_0086
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 86
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367236?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 47 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366897; 11248-040529_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 47
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366897?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Trombella%2C+Jerry&rft.aulast=Trombella&rft.aufirst=Jerry&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781124592879&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Cost+and+Price+Increases+in+Higher+Education%3A+Evidence+of+a+Cost+Disease+on+Higher+Education+Costs+and+Tuition+Prices+and+the+Implications+for+Higher+Education+Policy&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 62 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366727; 11248-040529_0062
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 62
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366727?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781124892405&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Financial+Management+Practices+of+Small%2C+Private%2C+Non-Profit+Colleges&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 21 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366559; 11248-040529_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366559?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 2 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366507; 11248-040529_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Blevins%2C+D+W&rft.aulast=Blevins&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=92&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrology+and+Cycling+of+Nitrogen+and+Phosphorus+in+Little+Bean+Marsh%3A+A+Remnant+Riparian+Wetland+Along+the+Missouri+River+in+Platte+County%2C+Missouri%2C+1996-97&rft.title=Hydrology+and+Cycling+of+Nitrogen+and+Phosphorus+in+Little+Bean+Marsh%3A+A+Remnant+Riparian+Wetland+Along+the+Missouri+River+in+Platte+County%2C+Missouri%2C+1996-97&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 4 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366442; 11248-040529_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366442?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 19 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366370; 11248-040529_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366370?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366265; 11248-040529_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366265?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 81 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366232; 11248-040529_0081
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 81
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EASTERN CORRIDOR MULTI-MODAL PROJECTS, HAMILTON AND CLERMONT COUNTIES, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - EASTERN CORRIDOR MULTI-MODAL PROJECTS, HAMILTON AND CLERMONT COUNTIES, OHIO.
AN  - 36366216; 11247-040528_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-modal improvements in the corridor extending between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs in Hamilton and Clermont counties, Ohio is proposed. The Eastern Corridor is currently characterized by an inadequate transportation network burdened by increasing demand. This detailed Tier 1 study area covers 14 square miles in the eastern sector of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, extending from downtown Cincinnati east to the Interstate 275 (I-275) outer-belt in Clermont County. The project is being implemented using a two-tiered environmental review process. The Tier 1 work, which is the subject of this draft EIS, identifies feasible alternatives fro different multi-modal components, including ranges of preliminary impacts and costs, to be carried through to Tier 2 for detailed study. Feasible alternatives identified during Tier 1 consist of general location and operation corridors. Multi-modal alternatives include various transportation system management actions (including new bike and pedestrian trails following existing transportation routes or on new alignments), improved bus transit (including expanded bus routes, new community circulators, feeder routes to compliment rail transit, and new bus hubs), new rail transit extending from downtown Cincinnati to Milford, and new highway capacity from Red Bank Road at I-71 to State Route 32/I-275 in the Eastgate area of Clermont County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ultimate multi-modal plan to be implemented would provide for an integrated system of automobile, bus, and transit movement of people and goods. Existing capacity insufficiencies would be eliminated or improved significantly The program would provide adequate linkage and mobility via the region's key transportation corridors to promote social and economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Primary impact concerns identified in this Tier 1 document include potential residential and business relocations, crossing of the Little Miami River (a state-administered component of the National Wild and Scenic River System), possible encroachment on parkland, and possible impacts to several historic districts included in the National Register of Historic Places as well as other cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040528, 661 pages and maps, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-02-D
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Parks
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Little Miami River
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366216?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EASTERN+CORRIDOR+MULTI-MODAL+PROJECTS%2C+HAMILTON+AND+CLERMONT+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=EASTERN+CORRIDOR+MULTI-MODAL+PROJECTS%2C+HAMILTON+AND+CLERMONT+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 29 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366211; 11248-040529_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 29
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366211?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Flint%2C+LE%3BFlint%2C+AL%3BCurry%2C+D+S%3BRounds%2C+SA%3BDoyle%2C+M+C&rft.aulast=Flint&rft.aufirst=LE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=90&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water-Quality+Data+from+2002+to+2003+and+Analysis+of+Data+Gaps+for+Development+of+Total+Maximum+Daily+Loads+in+the+Lower+Klamath+River+Basin%2C+California&rft.title=Water-Quality+Data+from+2002+to+2003+and+Analysis+of+Data+Gaps+for+Development+of+Total+Maximum+Daily+Loads+in+the+Lower+Klamath+River+Basin%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 78 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36366044; 11248-040529_0078
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 78
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366044?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 49 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36365896; 11248-040529_0049
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 49
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365896?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 61 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36365587; 11248-040529_0061
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 61
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365587?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 5 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36365460; 11248-040529_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365460?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 42 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36364669; 11248-040529_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 42
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364669?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 69 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36364459; 11248-040529_0069
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 69
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364459?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 6 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36364356; 11248-040529_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364356?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 52 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36363605; 11248-040529_0052
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 52
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363605?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 45 of 87]
T2  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36363087; 11248-040529_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 45
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363087?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 16360627; 11248
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 130 wind turbine generators on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts are proposed. The turbines would be located approximately 4.7 miles from the nearest point of land on the mainland (Point Gammon), the southeastern portion of the wind park would be approximately 11 miles from Nantucket Island (Great Point) and the westernmost turbines would lie 5.5 miles off Martha's Vineyard (Cape Poge). The turbines would be arranged to maximize the Wind Park's energy generating capacity to achieve a maximum potential electric output of approximately 454 kilowatts of renewable power. The turbine array would provide for sufficient spacing between turbines, ensuring a grid extending a minimum of 0.34 nautical miles) by 0.56 nautical miles. Power generated by each turbines would be transmitted via a 33-kilovolt submarine transmission cable system to the Electric Service Platform located centrally within the turbine array. The platform would transmit electricity to the shore via a submarine cable system consisting of two 12.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt lines extending to a landfall site in Yarmouth (Lewis Bay), which it would connect with an underground cable system near Willow Street in Yarmouth and, then, with the existing NSTAR Electric Barnstable Switching Station for distribution through the existing power grid. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS presents a proposal submitted by the applicant in November 2001. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project's interconnection with the existing NSTAR grid would allow wind-generated energy from the turbine array to be transmitted and distributed to users connected to the New England transmission system, including users on Cape Cod and the Islands. Hence, NSTAR energy generation would be diversified and the environment would benefit from a replacement of some energy generated based on fossil fuel combustion with a safe, clean source of energy. The project would create 154 jobs, generating $6.93 million in annual employment income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Array installation would damage benthic habitat, including valued shellfish habitat, and alter the geologic underpinnings of the seafloor. Avian species would suffer mortality due to collisions with turbine blades. The turbines would present a navigational hazard for ships entering and leaving the area. Archaeological resource sites could be affected by the placement of six turbines and seven portions of the inner array cable grid within the easternmost portion of the array. The array would mar visual aesthetics in the area, including views from a number of historic districts and individual structures and from recreational boats using Nantucket Sound. Noise associated with turbine operation would annoy recreationists and could affect bird populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040529, Volume 1--1,275 pages, Volume 2--1,381 pages, Volume 3--625 pages, Volume 4-311 pages, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Nantucket Sound
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16360627?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=CAPE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NANTUCKET+SOUND%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EASTERN CORRIDOR MULTI-MODAL PROJECTS, HAMILTON AND CLERMONT COUNTIES, OHIO.
AN  - 16358366; 11247
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-modal improvements in the corridor extending between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs in Hamilton and Clermont counties, Ohio is proposed. The Eastern Corridor is currently characterized by an inadequate transportation network burdened by increasing demand. This detailed Tier 1 study area covers 14 square miles in the eastern sector of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, extending from downtown Cincinnati east to the Interstate 275 (I-275) outer-belt in Clermont County. The project is being implemented using a two-tiered environmental review process. The Tier 1 work, which is the subject of this draft EIS, identifies feasible alternatives fro different multi-modal components, including ranges of preliminary impacts and costs, to be carried through to Tier 2 for detailed study. Feasible alternatives identified during Tier 1 consist of general location and operation corridors. Multi-modal alternatives include various transportation system management actions (including new bike and pedestrian trails following existing transportation routes or on new alignments), improved bus transit (including expanded bus routes, new community circulators, feeder routes to compliment rail transit, and new bus hubs), new rail transit extending from downtown Cincinnati to Milford, and new highway capacity from Red Bank Road at I-71 to State Route 32/I-275 in the Eastgate area of Clermont County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ultimate multi-modal plan to be implemented would provide for an integrated system of automobile, bus, and transit movement of people and goods. Existing capacity insufficiencies would be eliminated or improved significantly The program would provide adequate linkage and mobility via the region's key transportation corridors to promote social and economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Primary impact concerns identified in this Tier 1 document include potential residential and business relocations, crossing of the Little Miami River (a state-administered component of the National Wild and Scenic River System), possible encroachment on parkland, and possible impacts to several historic districts included in the National Register of Historic Places as well as other cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040528, 661 pages and maps, November 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-02-D
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Parks
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Little Miami River
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358366?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EASTERN+CORRIDOR+MULTI-MODAL+PROJECTS%2C+HAMILTON+AND+CLERMONT+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=EASTERN+CORRIDOR+MULTI-MODAL+PROJECTS%2C+HAMILTON+AND+CLERMONT+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36436904; 11241
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continued leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analysed in this draft EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. No preferred alternative has been selected. Annual costs of onsite disposal are estimated at $20.7 million, while annual offsite disposal estimates range from $41.3 million to $52.5 million for truck transport, $49 million for rail transport, and $49.4 million to $58.2 million for slurry transport. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. Borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-weet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00111D, Volume 20, Number 2 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040520, Summary--52 pages, Draft EIS--721 pages, Appendices--411 pages, November 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Radiation Hazards
KW  - Radioactive Wastes
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Streams
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Utah
KW  - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Compliance
KW  - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436904?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36367969; 11241-040520_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continued leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analysed in this draft EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. No preferred alternative has been selected. Annual costs of onsite disposal are estimated at $20.7 million, while annual offsite disposal estimates range from $41.3 million to $52.5 million for truck transport, $49 million for rail transport, and $49.4 million to $58.2 million for slurry transport. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. Borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-weet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00111D, Volume 20, Number 2 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040520, Summary--52 pages, Draft EIS--721 pages, Appendices--411 pages, November 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Radiation Hazards
KW  - Radioactive Wastes
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Streams
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Utah
KW  - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Compliance
KW  - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367969?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36365715; 11241-040520_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continued leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analysed in this draft EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. No preferred alternative has been selected. Annual costs of onsite disposal are estimated at $20.7 million, while annual offsite disposal estimates range from $41.3 million to $52.5 million for truck transport, $49 million for rail transport, and $49.4 million to $58.2 million for slurry transport. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. Borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-weet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00111D, Volume 20, Number 2 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040520, Summary--52 pages, Draft EIS--721 pages, Appendices--411 pages, November 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Radiation Hazards
KW  - Radioactive Wastes
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Streams
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Utah
KW  - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Compliance
KW  - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365715?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - REMEDIATION OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36363472; 11241-040520_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continued leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analysed in this draft EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. No preferred alternative has been selected. Annual costs of onsite disposal are estimated at $20.7 million, while annual offsite disposal estimates range from $41.3 million to $52.5 million for truck transport, $49 million for rail transport, and $49.4 million to $58.2 million for slurry transport. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. Borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-weet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00111D, Volume 20, Number 2 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040520, Summary--52 pages, Draft EIS--721 pages, Appendices--411 pages, November 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Radiation Hazards
KW  - Radioactive Wastes
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Streams
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Utah
KW  - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Compliance
KW  - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363472?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATION+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36367948; 11234-040513_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the King Range National Conservation Area (KRNCA) of California is proposed. the KRNCA encompasses 58,000 acres of public and 6,000 acres of private lands located along the rugged northern California coast approximately 60 miles south of Eureak and 200 miles north of San Francisco. The total planning area encompasses approximately 69,000 acres. A larger "planning area of influence" also includes the surrounding region, stretching from McNutt Gulch near Petrolia in the north to Whale Gulch in the south and including the Mattole River watershed. An abrupt wall of mountains thrusts 4,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean, making the area one of the most spectacular and remote stretches of coastline in the continental United States. Visitors pursue a wide variety of recreational activities, and the area provides special forest products, mostly wild mushrooms, and livestock grazing land for several local ranchers. The existing 1974 RMP requires evaluation and revision in the light of resource and and recreational developments in the area since its inception. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing RMP, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would represent a blend of the various options addressing each resource issue under the various alternatives under consideration. The plan would address the management of visual resources, cultural and historic resources, land acquisition and disposition, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental concern, aquatic ecosystems, wildlife habitat, terrestrial/vegetative ecosystems, forest resources, special forest products, grazing resources, fire management, transportation and access, recreation resources, and interpretation and education activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for appropriate use of natural and recreational resources within the area, while protecting the pristine values of the area for present and future generations. Grazing interests would be protected, but impacts of rangeland use would be reduced to a minimum. Recreational access to the area would increase appreciably. Low-impact economic exploitation of the area would generally increase, benefiting local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreational access facilities and increased visitation would result in some impacts to soils and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). and King Range Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-476). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0265D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040513, Volume I-462 pages and maps, Volume II--226 pages, November 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-45
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - King Range National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - King Range Act of 1970, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367948?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+RANGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=KING+RANGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36366158; 11234-040513_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the King Range National Conservation Area (KRNCA) of California is proposed. the KRNCA encompasses 58,000 acres of public and 6,000 acres of private lands located along the rugged northern California coast approximately 60 miles south of Eureak and 200 miles north of San Francisco. The total planning area encompasses approximately 69,000 acres. A larger "planning area of influence" also includes the surrounding region, stretching from McNutt Gulch near Petrolia in the north to Whale Gulch in the south and including the Mattole River watershed. An abrupt wall of mountains thrusts 4,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean, making the area one of the most spectacular and remote stretches of coastline in the continental United States. Visitors pursue a wide variety of recreational activities, and the area provides special forest products, mostly wild mushrooms, and livestock grazing land for several local ranchers. The existing 1974 RMP requires evaluation and revision in the light of resource and and recreational developments in the area since its inception. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing RMP, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would represent a blend of the various options addressing each resource issue under the various alternatives under consideration. The plan would address the management of visual resources, cultural and historic resources, land acquisition and disposition, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental concern, aquatic ecosystems, wildlife habitat, terrestrial/vegetative ecosystems, forest resources, special forest products, grazing resources, fire management, transportation and access, recreation resources, and interpretation and education activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for appropriate use of natural and recreational resources within the area, while protecting the pristine values of the area for present and future generations. Grazing interests would be protected, but impacts of rangeland use would be reduced to a minimum. Recreational access to the area would increase appreciably. Low-impact economic exploitation of the area would generally increase, benefiting local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreational access facilities and increased visitation would result in some impacts to soils and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). and King Range Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-476). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0265D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040513, Volume I-462 pages and maps, Volume II--226 pages, November 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-45
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - King Range National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - King Range Act of 1970, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366158?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+RANGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=KING+RANGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16349283; 11234
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the King Range National Conservation Area (KRNCA) of California is proposed. the KRNCA encompasses 58,000 acres of public and 6,000 acres of private lands located along the rugged northern California coast approximately 60 miles south of Eureak and 200 miles north of San Francisco. The total planning area encompasses approximately 69,000 acres. A larger "planning area of influence" also includes the surrounding region, stretching from McNutt Gulch near Petrolia in the north to Whale Gulch in the south and including the Mattole River watershed. An abrupt wall of mountains thrusts 4,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean, making the area one of the most spectacular and remote stretches of coastline in the continental United States. Visitors pursue a wide variety of recreational activities, and the area provides special forest products, mostly wild mushrooms, and livestock grazing land for several local ranchers. The existing 1974 RMP requires evaluation and revision in the light of resource and and recreational developments in the area since its inception. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing RMP, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would represent a blend of the various options addressing each resource issue under the various alternatives under consideration. The plan would address the management of visual resources, cultural and historic resources, land acquisition and disposition, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental concern, aquatic ecosystems, wildlife habitat, terrestrial/vegetative ecosystems, forest resources, special forest products, grazing resources, fire management, transportation and access, recreation resources, and interpretation and education activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for appropriate use of natural and recreational resources within the area, while protecting the pristine values of the area for present and future generations. Grazing interests would be protected, but impacts of rangeland use would be reduced to a minimum. Recreational access to the area would increase appreciably. Low-impact economic exploitation of the area would generally increase, benefiting local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreational access facilities and increased visitation would result in some impacts to soils and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). and King Range Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-476). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0265D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040513, Volume I-462 pages and maps, Volume II--226 pages, November 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-45
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - King Range National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - King Range Act of 1970, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349283?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+RANGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=KING+RANGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, UPPER SNAKE RIVER DISTRICT, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, UPPER SNAKE RIVER DISTRICT, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368901; 11233-040512_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 12 existing land use plans directing management of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Snake River District of Idaho is proposed to address fire, fuels, and related vegetation management issues. Currently, many of the vegetation types within the district have altered fire regimes that are not within their historical range of variability. Large and/or severe fires in these vegetation types can threaten people and property as well as the resiliency, integrity, and long-term sustainability of ecosystem components and processes. Fires have been occurring more frequently and burning more severely in some vegetation community types, The invasion of sagebrush steppe by annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, has substantially increased fine fuel loads in these communities, making them more susceptible to large, frequent, and severe fires. In other plant communities, fires are occurring less frequently than they did historically, causing undesirable changes in plant species composition and structure and an accumulation of hazardous fuels. Key issues identified during scoping include the extent of acreage identified for treatment and impacts on habitat for sage grouse, a federally protected species. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The originally proposed action (Alternative B), would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration activities and the use of fire in all plant communities excepting wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert shrub, and vegetated rock/lava. Alternative C would implement fire treatment levels to meet the goals of the Cohesive Strategy and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, was developed to determine the appropriate level and kind of treatments within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem to meet the purpose of the proposed action while benefiting sagebrush habitat, sage grouse, and sagebrush-obloigate species. Total fire management costs over the next 10 years would amount to $184 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish fire management guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions that best respond to the need to adjust the vegetation regimes in the district. Wildfire would be reintroduced as a necessary element in the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems.Hazardous levels of fuel loading would be rectified. Habitat for sage grouse would be protected and enhanced. Aspen, Douglas-fir, juniper, and pinyon pine stands would undergo required control through prescribed fire. The threat of wildfire to human communities in the district would be reduced significantly. Treatment expenditures would funnel $64 million into the local economy over the next 10 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would place aspen and dry conifer stands and mountain shrub communities at risk for the loss of key ecosystem components. Other communities that could be negatively affected include low- and mid-elevation shrub, mountain shrub, and wet/cold conifer. Vegetation treatments would destroy a portion of source habitat, and could result in the loss of some individual communities of endangered plant species. Four human communities would remain at moderate risk for wildland/urban interface fires. Approximately 1.5 million footprint acres would be unavailable to wildlife for portions of the following 10 years, and 28,927 animal unit months of forage would be temporarily unavailable to livestock each year; this latter figure would represent the loss of 4.3 percent of the available forage and $439,040 in grazing permit fees. Cultural resources, including resources of value to Native Americans, could be damaged or destroyed. Vegetation treatments would also temporarily prevent access to some recreational areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040512, 621 pages and maps, November 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368901?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+UPPER+SNAKE+RIVER+DISTRICT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+UPPER+SNAKE+RIVER+DISTRICT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Physical Model Study: City of Albuquerque Drinking Water Project, Sediment Management at the Proposed Rio Grande Diversion
AN  - 17863187; 6196834
AB  - A 1:24 scale physical model study was conducted to qualitatively investigate sediment management issues at the City of Albuquerque NM Drinking Water Project's proposed Rio Grande diversion structure. Discussion of sediment scaling methodologies employed is presented along with descriptions of model verification tasks performed. A variety of sediment exclusion systems were examined in a comparative testing scheme to identify alternatives for limiting diversion of sediments while maintaining positive attraction conditions for a fish bypass that would continuously enable fish passage around the diversion structure. Surface velocity fields were mapped for selected flow conditions near the diversion intake with the aid of digital overhead photography and computer aided design and drafting (CADD) technologies.
JF  - Hydraulic Laboratory Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
AU  - Gill, Tom
Y1  - 2004/11//
PY  - 2004
DA  - Nov 2004
SP  - 50
PB  - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - Testing Procedures
KW  - USA, Rio Grande R.
KW  - Computers
KW  - Intakes
KW  - Fish Passages
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - Water supply
KW  - USA, New Mexico, Albuquerque
KW  - Sediment-water interface
KW  - Drinking Water
KW  - Water management
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Photography
KW  - Water Diversion
KW  - Modelling
KW  - SW 4020:Evaluation process
KW  - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17863187?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Gill%2C+Tom&rft.aulast=Gill&rft.aufirst=Tom&rft.date=2004-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=50&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Physical+Model+Study%3A+City+of+Albuquerque+Drinking+Water+Project%2C+Sediment+Management+at+the+Proposed+Rio+Grande+Diversion&rft.title=Physical+Model+Study%3A+City+of+Albuquerque+Drinking+Water+Project%2C+Sediment+Management+at+the+Proposed+Rio+Grande+Diversion&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, UPPER SNAKE RIVER DISTRICT, IDAHO.
AN  - 16347559; 11233
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 12 existing land use plans directing management of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Snake River District of Idaho is proposed to address fire, fuels, and related vegetation management issues. Currently, many of the vegetation types within the district have altered fire regimes that are not within their historical range of variability. Large and/or severe fires in these vegetation types can threaten people and property as well as the resiliency, integrity, and long-term sustainability of ecosystem components and processes. Fires have been occurring more frequently and burning more severely in some vegetation community types, The invasion of sagebrush steppe by annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, has substantially increased fine fuel loads in these communities, making them more susceptible to large, frequent, and severe fires. In other plant communities, fires are occurring less frequently than they did historically, causing undesirable changes in plant species composition and structure and an accumulation of hazardous fuels. Key issues identified during scoping include the extent of acreage identified for treatment and impacts on habitat for sage grouse, a federally protected species. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The originally proposed action (Alternative B), would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration activities and the use of fire in all plant communities excepting wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert shrub, and vegetated rock/lava. Alternative C would implement fire treatment levels to meet the goals of the Cohesive Strategy and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, was developed to determine the appropriate level and kind of treatments within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem to meet the purpose of the proposed action while benefiting sagebrush habitat, sage grouse, and sagebrush-obloigate species. Total fire management costs over the next 10 years would amount to $184 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish fire management guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions that best respond to the need to adjust the vegetation regimes in the district. Wildfire would be reintroduced as a necessary element in the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems.Hazardous levels of fuel loading would be rectified. Habitat for sage grouse would be protected and enhanced. Aspen, Douglas-fir, juniper, and pinyon pine stands would undergo required control through prescribed fire. The threat of wildfire to human communities in the district would be reduced significantly. Treatment expenditures would funnel $64 million into the local economy over the next 10 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would place aspen and dry conifer stands and mountain shrub communities at risk for the loss of key ecosystem components. Other communities that could be negatively affected include low- and mid-elevation shrub, mountain shrub, and wet/cold conifer. Vegetation treatments would destroy a portion of source habitat, and could result in the loss of some individual communities of endangered plant species. Four human communities would remain at moderate risk for wildland/urban interface fires. Approximately 1.5 million footprint acres would be unavailable to wildlife for portions of the following 10 years, and 28,927 animal unit months of forage would be temporarily unavailable to livestock each year; this latter figure would represent the loss of 4.3 percent of the available forage and $439,040 in grazing permit fees. Cultural resources, including resources of value to Native Americans, could be damaged or destroyed. Vegetation treatments would also temporarily prevent access to some recreational areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040512, 621 pages and maps, November 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16347559?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+UPPER+SNAKE+RIVER+DISTRICT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+UPPER+SNAKE+RIVER+DISTRICT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NATURAL COMMUNITY PLAN AND SANTA ROSA AND SAN JOACINITO MOUNTAINS TRAILS PLAN, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16348802; 11227
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species habitat conservation plan, an associated natural community conservation, and a trails plans for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains are proposed in Riverside County, California. The Coachella Valley is the westernmost extension of the Colorado River subunit of the Sonoran Desert and provides unique and diverse habitats that support many highly specialized species or plants and animals. The multi-species habitat conservation plan and natural community conservation plan would encompass 1.2 million acres and provide for a net planning area of 1.1 million acres, excluding Indian reservation lands not covered by the plan. The planning area extends from the Cabazon area of the San Gorgonio Pass in the northwest to lands surrounding the northern portions of the Salton Sea to the southeast. The planning area also includes mountainous areas and most of he associated watersheds surrounding the valley floor. The plan would provide for a conservation preserve system encompassing 725,780 acres of existing public and private conservation lands and the acquisition and/or management of 187,780 acres of additional conservation lands. The plans are in response to the application for an incidental take permit for species related to activities that have the potential to result in take, pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations and policies. Six Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would seek commitments by local, state, and federal agencies to implement the multi-species plan, acquire land and develop land management strategies by governments at all levels, provide for permanent preserve protection and management of habitats and populations of plant and animal species conserved in the Coachella Valley planning area, issue take permits in exchange for the implementation of an integrated conservation strategy and maintenance of the preserve system, seek issuance of take permits from federal and state authorities to permit land use and development that disturbs target species' habitats and natural communities covered under the plan, and incorporate amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan into the multi-species plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall management scheme would help maintain and enhance the biological diversity and ecosystem processes in the area, while allowing for future economic growth within the Coachella Valley. Plan implementation would provide for permanent open space, community edges, and recreational opportunities and otherwise contribute to the community character of the valley.Enhancement of recreational resources would also enhance one of the area's most valuable economic resources, namely, tourism. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land uses and developments in some areas would be significantly limited, impeding economic growth in some cases. Incidental take of federally protected species would result in the loss of individuals, but the efforts to protect species at the population level would not be affected. Periodic drain and flood control activity would alter natural flooding and other hydrologic processes, and the use of off-highway vehicles in the area would damage natural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040504, 941 pages, CD-ROM, October 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-54
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sonoran Desert
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COACHELLA+VALLEY+MULTIPLE+SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN+AND+ASSOCIATED+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+PLAN+AND+SANTA+ROSA+AND+SAN+JOACINITO+MOUNTAINS+TRAILS+PLAN%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=COACHELLA+VALLEY+MULTIPLE+SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN+AND+ASSOCIATED+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+PLAN+AND+SANTA+ROSA+AND+SAN+JOACINITO+MOUNTAINS+TRAILS+PLAN%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BROWNS PARK ROAD, FROM RED CREEK TO COLORADO STATE LINE, DAGGETT COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BROWNS PARK ROAD, FROM RED CREEK TO COLORADO STATE LINE, DAGGETT COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36360694; 11223-040500_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and partial realignment of Browns Park Road from Red Creek in Daggett County in Utah to the Utah/Colorado line at Colorado Route 318 are proposed. The newly paved highway, which is currently a maintained gravel road, would extend 16 to 16.8 miles. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, in this draft EIS. The action alternatives would fail to conform with the resource management plan of the Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior) for the Diamond Mountain Resource Area, requiring an amendment to the plan to provide for the new transportation corridor and for visual resource considerations. The proposed new facility would be 30 feet wide, providing two lanes and allowing for a 30- to 40-mile-per-hour design speed. Rights-of-way would be approximately 100 feet wide. Action Alternative A would generally following the existing Browns Park Road, excepting the Jesse Ewing Canyon portion that would be routed to the west to lengthen the road course, reduce grades, and generally provide a safer travel route; this is the locally preferred alternative. Alternative B would generally follow the existing alignment, excepting the Jessee Ewing Canyon section, where the road would provide for a 12-percent grade and swing further east and west from the existing alignment to lengthen the course and lessen the grade. Estimated costs of alternatives A and B are 17.1 million and $21.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safer, more efficient transportation facility that would comply with American Association of State Highway and State Officials standards. The new facility would connect logical termini by linking a currently paved portion of Browns Park Road in Utah, which junctions with US 919 near the Utah-Wyoming border, to Colorado State Route 318. The road would improve access to recreational, agricultural, and commercial developments in the Green River and Flaming Gorge from areas in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would disturb 203 to 218 acres during construction, though only 180.6 to 195.8 acres would lie within the permanent rights-of-way; 58 to 61 acres, all of which provides wildlife habitat for deer and grouse, would not be reclaimed. The project would displace 0.29 acre of wetland at Willow Creek and require filling of 5,980 to 6,120 linear feet of ephemeral channel and possibly 1,900 linear feet of intermittent channel. The Green River would lose 243 acre-feet of water (0.02 percent of the average flow) over the life of the project. Five to six grazing allotments would lose some forage production capacity. Vandalism potential at three historic and three prehistoric sites would increase somewhat. The project would degrade visual resources and otherwise impact the recreational experience along the corridor, which includes the Green River, included in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Traffic noise would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040500, 437 pages and maps, October 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-02-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360694?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BROWNS+PARK+ROAD%2C+FROM+RED+CREEK+TO+COLORADO+STATE+LINE%2C+DAGGETT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BROWNS+PARK+ROAD%2C+FROM+RED+CREEK+TO+COLORADO+STATE+LINE%2C+DAGGETT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BROWNS PARK ROAD, FROM RED CREEK TO COLORADO STATE LINE, DAGGETT COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 16359006; 11223
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and partial realignment of Browns Park Road from Red Creek in Daggett County in Utah to the Utah/Colorado line at Colorado Route 318 are proposed. The newly paved highway, which is currently a maintained gravel road, would extend 16 to 16.8 miles. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, in this draft EIS. The action alternatives would fail to conform with the resource management plan of the Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior) for the Diamond Mountain Resource Area, requiring an amendment to the plan to provide for the new transportation corridor and for visual resource considerations. The proposed new facility would be 30 feet wide, providing two lanes and allowing for a 30- to 40-mile-per-hour design speed. Rights-of-way would be approximately 100 feet wide. Action Alternative A would generally following the existing Browns Park Road, excepting the Jesse Ewing Canyon portion that would be routed to the west to lengthen the road course, reduce grades, and generally provide a safer travel route; this is the locally preferred alternative. Alternative B would generally follow the existing alignment, excepting the Jessee Ewing Canyon section, where the road would provide for a 12-percent grade and swing further east and west from the existing alignment to lengthen the course and lessen the grade. Estimated costs of alternatives A and B are 17.1 million and $21.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safer, more efficient transportation facility that would comply with American Association of State Highway and State Officials standards. The new facility would connect logical termini by linking a currently paved portion of Browns Park Road in Utah, which junctions with US 919 near the Utah-Wyoming border, to Colorado State Route 318. The road would improve access to recreational, agricultural, and commercial developments in the Green River and Flaming Gorge from areas in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would disturb 203 to 218 acres during construction, though only 180.6 to 195.8 acres would lie within the permanent rights-of-way; 58 to 61 acres, all of which provides wildlife habitat for deer and grouse, would not be reclaimed. The project would displace 0.29 acre of wetland at Willow Creek and require filling of 5,980 to 6,120 linear feet of ephemeral channel and possibly 1,900 linear feet of intermittent channel. The Green River would lose 243 acre-feet of water (0.02 percent of the average flow) over the life of the project. Five to six grazing allotments would lose some forage production capacity. Vandalism potential at three historic and three prehistoric sites would increase somewhat. The project would degrade visual resources and otherwise impact the recreational experience along the corridor, which includes the Green River, included in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Traffic noise would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040500, 437 pages and maps, October 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-02-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359006?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BROWNS+PARK+ROAD%2C+FROM+RED+CREEK+TO+COLORADO+STATE+LINE%2C+DAGGETT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BROWNS+PARK+ROAD%2C+FROM+RED+CREEK+TO+COLORADO+STATE+LINE%2C+DAGGETT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 905874616; 11217-3_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit by the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for the construction and operation of 17.3 miles of rail line, to be known as the Western Alignment or Tongue River III, in Rosebud and Big Horn counties, Montana is proposed. The applicant (Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.) previously previously submitted two related applications that were considered and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor, in 1986 and 1996, known as Tongue River I and II, respectively, involving the construction and operation of rail lines in Custer, Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. The Western Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost portion of the 41-mile Ashland-to-Decker alignment approved under Tongue River II and known as the Four Mile Alternative. The overall purpose of all the Tongue River rail projects is to transport coal from mines in the Powder River basin and the Tongue River Valley to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. The Board has conducted a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Western Alignment. As part of the analysis, this supplement compares potential impacts of the Western Alignment to those of the previously approved Four Mile Creek Alternative considered in the 1996 final EIS. Furthermore, in this supplement, the applicant's proposed refinements to the alignment previously approved by the 1986 and 1996 reviews. It has been determined that both the proposed Western Alignment and the proposed Four Mile Creek Alignment are environmentally acceptable routes and that proposed refinements to alignments previously approved for Tongue River I and II would not result in any new significant impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By transporting coal from the Powder River basin and Tongue River Valley to the national railway system, the new rail lines would ensure a continued supply of coal to electrical power generation interests in the Midwest and Northeast. The reliability, security, and longevity of the U.S. coal supply system would be bolstered and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, would be lessened. Either of the routes considered acceptable, as eigher could operate safely and both avoid the sensitive Tongue River Canyon. The Western Alignment would offer certain operational efficiencies and concomitant environmental benefits due to its more favorable grade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Western Alignment would displace 672 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 13 landowners, 42 non-perennial stream crossings, 1.69 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and nine cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 17.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 18,300 to 28,700 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 6,770 to 10,600 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. The Four Mile Creek Alignment would displace 765 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 15 landowners (including two homeowners to be displaced), 40 non-perennial stream crossings, 6.09 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and six cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 10.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 14,600 to 23,800 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 3,650 to 6,000 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. Sec 10901), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft, draft supplement, and final EIS on the 1996 Tongue River II rail line, see 92-0314D, Volume 16, Number 4, 94-0124D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 96-0184F, Volume 20, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040493, Draft EIS--394 pages, Appendices--521 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: STB 35117
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Interstate Commerce Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874616?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 905874615; 11217-3_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit by the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for the construction and operation of 17.3 miles of rail line, to be known as the Western Alignment or Tongue River III, in Rosebud and Big Horn counties, Montana is proposed. The applicant (Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.) previously previously submitted two related applications that were considered and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor, in 1986 and 1996, known as Tongue River I and II, respectively, involving the construction and operation of rail lines in Custer, Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. The Western Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost portion of the 41-mile Ashland-to-Decker alignment approved under Tongue River II and known as the Four Mile Alternative. The overall purpose of all the Tongue River rail projects is to transport coal from mines in the Powder River basin and the Tongue River Valley to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. The Board has conducted a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Western Alignment. As part of the analysis, this supplement compares potential impacts of the Western Alignment to those of the previously approved Four Mile Creek Alternative considered in the 1996 final EIS. Furthermore, in this supplement, the applicant's proposed refinements to the alignment previously approved by the 1986 and 1996 reviews. It has been determined that both the proposed Western Alignment and the proposed Four Mile Creek Alignment are environmentally acceptable routes and that proposed refinements to alignments previously approved for Tongue River I and II would not result in any new significant impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By transporting coal from the Powder River basin and Tongue River Valley to the national railway system, the new rail lines would ensure a continued supply of coal to electrical power generation interests in the Midwest and Northeast. The reliability, security, and longevity of the U.S. coal supply system would be bolstered and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, would be lessened. Either of the routes considered acceptable, as eigher could operate safely and both avoid the sensitive Tongue River Canyon. The Western Alignment would offer certain operational efficiencies and concomitant environmental benefits due to its more favorable grade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Western Alignment would displace 672 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 13 landowners, 42 non-perennial stream crossings, 1.69 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and nine cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 17.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 18,300 to 28,700 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 6,770 to 10,600 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. The Four Mile Creek Alignment would displace 765 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 15 landowners (including two homeowners to be displaced), 40 non-perennial stream crossings, 6.09 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and six cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 10.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 14,600 to 23,800 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 3,650 to 6,000 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. Sec 10901), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft, draft supplement, and final EIS on the 1996 Tongue River II rail line, see 92-0314D, Volume 16, Number 4, 94-0124D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 96-0184F, Volume 20, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040493, Draft EIS--394 pages, Appendices--521 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: STB 35117
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Interstate Commerce Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874615?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 905874613; 11217-3_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit by the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for the construction and operation of 17.3 miles of rail line, to be known as the Western Alignment or Tongue River III, in Rosebud and Big Horn counties, Montana is proposed. The applicant (Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.) previously previously submitted two related applications that were considered and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor, in 1986 and 1996, known as Tongue River I and II, respectively, involving the construction and operation of rail lines in Custer, Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. The Western Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost portion of the 41-mile Ashland-to-Decker alignment approved under Tongue River II and known as the Four Mile Alternative. The overall purpose of all the Tongue River rail projects is to transport coal from mines in the Powder River basin and the Tongue River Valley to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. The Board has conducted a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Western Alignment. As part of the analysis, this supplement compares potential impacts of the Western Alignment to those of the previously approved Four Mile Creek Alternative considered in the 1996 final EIS. Furthermore, in this supplement, the applicant's proposed refinements to the alignment previously approved by the 1986 and 1996 reviews. It has been determined that both the proposed Western Alignment and the proposed Four Mile Creek Alignment are environmentally acceptable routes and that proposed refinements to alignments previously approved for Tongue River I and II would not result in any new significant impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By transporting coal from the Powder River basin and Tongue River Valley to the national railway system, the new rail lines would ensure a continued supply of coal to electrical power generation interests in the Midwest and Northeast. The reliability, security, and longevity of the U.S. coal supply system would be bolstered and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, would be lessened. Either of the routes considered acceptable, as eigher could operate safely and both avoid the sensitive Tongue River Canyon. The Western Alignment would offer certain operational efficiencies and concomitant environmental benefits due to its more favorable grade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Western Alignment would displace 672 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 13 landowners, 42 non-perennial stream crossings, 1.69 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and nine cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 17.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 18,300 to 28,700 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 6,770 to 10,600 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. The Four Mile Creek Alignment would displace 765 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 15 landowners (including two homeowners to be displaced), 40 non-perennial stream crossings, 6.09 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and six cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 10.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 14,600 to 23,800 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 3,650 to 6,000 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. Sec 10901), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft, draft supplement, and final EIS on the 1996 Tongue River II rail line, see 92-0314D, Volume 16, Number 4, 94-0124D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 96-0184F, Volume 20, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040493, Draft EIS--394 pages, Appendices--521 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: STB 35117
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Interstate Commerce Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874613?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 905874612; 11217-3_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit by the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for the construction and operation of 17.3 miles of rail line, to be known as the Western Alignment or Tongue River III, in Rosebud and Big Horn counties, Montana is proposed. The applicant (Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.) previously previously submitted two related applications that were considered and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor, in 1986 and 1996, known as Tongue River I and II, respectively, involving the construction and operation of rail lines in Custer, Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. The Western Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost portion of the 41-mile Ashland-to-Decker alignment approved under Tongue River II and known as the Four Mile Alternative. The overall purpose of all the Tongue River rail projects is to transport coal from mines in the Powder River basin and the Tongue River Valley to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. The Board has conducted a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Western Alignment. As part of the analysis, this supplement compares potential impacts of the Western Alignment to those of the previously approved Four Mile Creek Alternative considered in the 1996 final EIS. Furthermore, in this supplement, the applicant's proposed refinements to the alignment previously approved by the 1986 and 1996 reviews. It has been determined that both the proposed Western Alignment and the proposed Four Mile Creek Alignment are environmentally acceptable routes and that proposed refinements to alignments previously approved for Tongue River I and II would not result in any new significant impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By transporting coal from the Powder River basin and Tongue River Valley to the national railway system, the new rail lines would ensure a continued supply of coal to electrical power generation interests in the Midwest and Northeast. The reliability, security, and longevity of the U.S. coal supply system would be bolstered and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, would be lessened. Either of the routes considered acceptable, as eigher could operate safely and both avoid the sensitive Tongue River Canyon. The Western Alignment would offer certain operational efficiencies and concomitant environmental benefits due to its more favorable grade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Western Alignment would displace 672 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 13 landowners, 42 non-perennial stream crossings, 1.69 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and nine cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 17.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 18,300 to 28,700 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 6,770 to 10,600 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. The Four Mile Creek Alignment would displace 765 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 15 landowners (including two homeowners to be displaced), 40 non-perennial stream crossings, 6.09 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and six cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 10.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 14,600 to 23,800 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 3,650 to 6,000 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. Sec 10901), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft, draft supplement, and final EIS on the 1996 Tongue River II rail line, see 92-0314D, Volume 16, Number 4, 94-0124D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 96-0184F, Volume 20, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040493, Draft EIS--394 pages, Appendices--521 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: STB 35117
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Interstate Commerce Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874612?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 905873981; 11216-2_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873981?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 905873978; 11216-2_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873978?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 905873975; 11216-2_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873975?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 905873971; 11216-2_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873971?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 905873965; 11216-2_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873965?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 905873958; 11216-2_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873958?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 16358200; 11217
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit by the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for the construction and operation of 17.3 miles of rail line, to be known as the Western Alignment or Tongue River III, in Rosebud and Big Horn counties, Montana is proposed. The applicant (Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.) previously previously submitted two related applications that were considered and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor, in 1986 and 1996, known as Tongue River I and II, respectively, involving the construction and operation of rail lines in Custer, Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. The Western Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost portion of the 41-mile Ashland-to-Decker alignment approved under Tongue River II and known as the Four Mile Alternative. The overall purpose of all the Tongue River rail projects is to transport coal from mines in the Powder River basin and the Tongue River Valley to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. The Board has conducted a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Western Alignment. As part of the analysis, this supplement compares potential impacts of the Western Alignment to those of the previously approved Four Mile Creek Alternative considered in the 1996 final EIS. Furthermore, in this supplement, the applicant's proposed refinements to the alignment previously approved by the 1986 and 1996 reviews. It has been determined that both the proposed Western Alignment and the proposed Four Mile Creek Alignment are environmentally acceptable routes and that proposed refinements to alignments previously approved for Tongue River I and II would not result in any new significant impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By transporting coal from the Powder River basin and Tongue River Valley to the national railway system, the new rail lines would ensure a continued supply of coal to electrical power generation interests in the Midwest and Northeast. The reliability, security, and longevity of the U.S. coal supply system would be bolstered and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, would be lessened. Either of the routes considered acceptable, as eigher could operate safely and both avoid the sensitive Tongue River Canyon. The Western Alignment would offer certain operational efficiencies and concomitant environmental benefits due to its more favorable grade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Western Alignment would displace 672 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 13 landowners, 42 non-perennial stream crossings, 1.69 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and nine cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 17.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 18,300 to 28,700 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 6,770 to 10,600 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. The Four Mile Creek Alignment would displace 765 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 15 landowners (including two homeowners to be displaced), 40 non-perennial stream crossings, 6.09 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and six cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 10.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 14,600 to 23,800 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 3,650 to 6,000 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. Sec 10901), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft, draft supplement, and final EIS on the 1996 Tongue River II rail line, see 92-0314D, Volume 16, Number 4, 94-0124D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 96-0184F, Volume 20, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040493, Draft EIS--394 pages, Appendices--521 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: STB 35117
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Interstate Commerce Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358200?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE, ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 16351788; 11216
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised management plan for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan is proposed. The national lakeshore is situated in the north-central section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the 42 miles of the south shoreline of Lake Superior between the communities of Munising and Grand Marais. The shoreline is known for its spectacular multicolored sandstone cliffs in the western portion of the lakeshore. The eastern portion of the lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above the lake. The last comprehensive management plan for the national lakeshore, which was established in October 1966, was completed in 1981. Since 1981, visitor use patterns and types, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national lakeshore, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited legislatively, and revised National Park Service management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore's lands and waters for designation as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The chosen alternative would direct park management for the next 15 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative D, modified) would provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features, thereby expanding opportunities for visitor use of the lakeshore. The plan would continue to restore the national lakeshore to as natural a state as possible. Natural ecological processes would be allowed to continue, and restoration programs would be initiated. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area would be proposed for designation as wilderness; approximately 18 percent of the lakeshore would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to Little Beaver Lake campground would remain; however, structures within the proposed wilderness would be removed. Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed and converted to trails or allowed to revert to natural conditions. To accommodate the possible increase in visitor use and to improve access within the portion of the lakeshore not proposed for wilderness, certain roads, including portions of County Road H-58, would be upgraded, and a campground would be added to the Miners area. Operational facilities would be consolidated at the ends of the national lakeshore for efficiency. Initial capital costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at $23.1 million. Life-cycle costs for a 25-year management period under the preferred alternative are estimated at $49.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve and provide public access to the museum collection and provide greater protection for the national lakeshore's cultural resources. Designated wilderness areas would be maintained in a pristine state in perpetuity. Primitive driving and other recreational opportunities would be enhanced. Life-cycle cost expenditures would contribute to the overall economy of Alger County. Access to lakeshore recreational resources by handicapped persons would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitor use restrictions would reduce the level of motor boating opportunities, including opportunities to visit Twelve-mile beach adjacent to the recommended wilderness area via motorized boats. The scenic character of County Road H-58 could be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 89-668, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0066, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040492, 405 pages, October 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-37
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 89-668, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351788?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=PICTURED+ROCKS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+ALGER+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Munising, Michigan; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36435171; 11210
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control master plan for the Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The project area encompasses 1,056 square miles of southeastern Nevada, including portions of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and unincorporated portions of Clark County. The majority of Clark County urban development lies within the Las Vegas Valley, a flood-prone area that has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage due to flooding since the turn of the 20th Century. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The proposed action would provide for a series of detention basins located around the perimeter of currently urbanized areas. These basins, and associated dikes, would be designed to collect flood flows and release the flows at metered rates that could be accommodated by downstream conveyance facilities. The plan would involve the continued development of detention basins to reduce peak flows to levels that can be handled by the existing downstream conveyance system with little or no major capacity improvements. These improvements are assessed with respect to the environmental consequences at the programmatic level in this final supplemental EIS. Specific project assessments would be implemented on a case-by-case basis using tools developed in this and other documents. In addition to the proposed plan, this supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed updated flood control master plan would help to alleviate flood-related problems, preventing damage to property and decreasing threats to human health and safety. Decreases in perennial low flows in unlined channels due to shallow groundwater seeps would be mitigated due to the lining of channels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would encounter difficulties associated with unstable soils and subsidence in the area. These activities would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The project facilities would lie within an area subject to seismic activity and characterized by unstable slopes. Fossiliferous alluvial units under the valley floor could be disturbed. Flow depths and velocities in downstream reaches could reach dangerous velocities. Lining of channels would reduce groundwater recharge. The development of basins and related facilities would displace desert vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased development in the area due to the reduction of the threat of flood would displace yet more wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0465D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040486, 444 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 14, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-42
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435171?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36367083; 11210-040486_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control master plan for the Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The project area encompasses 1,056 square miles of southeastern Nevada, including portions of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and unincorporated portions of Clark County. The majority of Clark County urban development lies within the Las Vegas Valley, a flood-prone area that has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage due to flooding since the turn of the 20th Century. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The proposed action would provide for a series of detention basins located around the perimeter of currently urbanized areas. These basins, and associated dikes, would be designed to collect flood flows and release the flows at metered rates that could be accommodated by downstream conveyance facilities. The plan would involve the continued development of detention basins to reduce peak flows to levels that can be handled by the existing downstream conveyance system with little or no major capacity improvements. These improvements are assessed with respect to the environmental consequences at the programmatic level in this final supplemental EIS. Specific project assessments would be implemented on a case-by-case basis using tools developed in this and other documents. In addition to the proposed plan, this supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed updated flood control master plan would help to alleviate flood-related problems, preventing damage to property and decreasing threats to human health and safety. Decreases in perennial low flows in unlined channels due to shallow groundwater seeps would be mitigated due to the lining of channels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would encounter difficulties associated with unstable soils and subsidence in the area. These activities would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The project facilities would lie within an area subject to seismic activity and characterized by unstable slopes. Fossiliferous alluvial units under the valley floor could be disturbed. Flow depths and velocities in downstream reaches could reach dangerous velocities. Lining of channels would reduce groundwater recharge. The development of basins and related facilities would displace desert vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased development in the area due to the reduction of the threat of flood would displace yet more wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0465D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040486, 444 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 14, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-42
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367083?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROUTE 17, SOUTH OF ROUTE O TO SOUTH OF HOWELL COUNTY LINE, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI (JOB NUMBER J9P440).
AN  - 36436589; 11207
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of two miles of Route 17 on a new location in Texas County, Missouri is proposed. The project termini are a point 0.5 mile south of the Howell County line and a point approximately 1.5 miles north of the Howell County Line. The project would include the replacement of existing Bridge J-665 over the Jacks Fork River. The new facility would consist of a two-lane highway with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. The existing route is characterized by substandard vertical and horizontal alignment and Bridge J-665 is functionally obsolete. The section of the roadway immediately north and south of the existing bridge has a accident rate that is higher than the statewide average. The route also accommodates a substantial volume of track traffic, requiring that the bridge be kept open during construction and the new facility be constructed on a new location parallel to the existing facility. Nine build alternatives and a No-Built Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 1.14 miles to 8.98 miles. The dimension of the Jacks Fort River crossing range from 160 feet to 30 feet in height and from 600 to 1,085 feet in length. Depending on the alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $4.7 million to $21.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the highway and replacement of the bridge would improve safety along this section of Route 17 and increase operating efficiencies, leading to a reduction in congestion and emissions of air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three commercial structures and 30 residences, 5.22 acres of wetlands, and 32 acres of parkland. The highway would traverse one to nine streams and affect sensitive biological resources. Up to seven caves and three sinkholes could be affected. The existing bridge, which is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, would be demolished, and three to 17 architecturally significant structures and up to 12 archaeological resource sites could be affected. The new bridge would mar visual aesthetics in the vicinity of the crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-209D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040483, 634 pages and maps, October 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-02-01-F
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Parks
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436589?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+17%2C+SOUTH+OF+ROUTE+O+TO+SOUTH+OF+HOWELL+COUNTY+LINE%2C+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+TEXAS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28JOB+NUMBER+J9P440%29.&rft.title=ROUTE+17%2C+SOUTH+OF+ROUTE+O+TO+SOUTH+OF+HOWELL+COUNTY+LINE%2C+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+TEXAS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28JOB+NUMBER+J9P440%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROUTE 17, SOUTH OF ROUTE O TO SOUTH OF HOWELL COUNTY LINE, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI (JOB NUMBER J9P440). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ROUTE 17, SOUTH OF ROUTE O TO SOUTH OF HOWELL COUNTY LINE, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI (JOB NUMBER J9P440).
AN  - 36367041; 11207-040483_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of two miles of Route 17 on a new location in Texas County, Missouri is proposed. The project termini are a point 0.5 mile south of the Howell County line and a point approximately 1.5 miles north of the Howell County Line. The project would include the replacement of existing Bridge J-665 over the Jacks Fork River. The new facility would consist of a two-lane highway with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. The existing route is characterized by substandard vertical and horizontal alignment and Bridge J-665 is functionally obsolete. The section of the roadway immediately north and south of the existing bridge has a accident rate that is higher than the statewide average. The route also accommodates a substantial volume of track traffic, requiring that the bridge be kept open during construction and the new facility be constructed on a new location parallel to the existing facility. Nine build alternatives and a No-Built Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 1.14 miles to 8.98 miles. The dimension of the Jacks Fort River crossing range from 160 feet to 30 feet in height and from 600 to 1,085 feet in length. Depending on the alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $4.7 million to $21.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the highway and replacement of the bridge would improve safety along this section of Route 17 and increase operating efficiencies, leading to a reduction in congestion and emissions of air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three commercial structures and 30 residences, 5.22 acres of wetlands, and 32 acres of parkland. The highway would traverse one to nine streams and affect sensitive biological resources. Up to seven caves and three sinkholes could be affected. The existing bridge, which is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, would be demolished, and three to 17 architecturally significant structures and up to 12 archaeological resource sites could be affected. The new bridge would mar visual aesthetics in the vicinity of the crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-209D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040483, 634 pages and maps, October 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-02-01-F
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Parks
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367041?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+17%2C+SOUTH+OF+ROUTE+O+TO+SOUTH+OF+HOWELL+COUNTY+LINE%2C+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+TEXAS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28JOB+NUMBER+J9P440%29.&rft.title=ROUTE+17%2C+SOUTH+OF+ROUTE+O+TO+SOUTH+OF+HOWELL+COUNTY+LINE%2C+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+TEXAS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28JOB+NUMBER+J9P440%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36440542; 11271
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in this final EIS. This attachment to the final EIS provides the record of decision with respect to the preferred alternative as well as an appendix containing belated comments. The alternative preferred by the Montana DeparTment of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide an improved two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include up to 30 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the improved two-lane facility, two-lane facility with passing lanes, four-lane undivided facility, and four-lane divided alternative are $69.7 million, $73.4 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of 1.9 for a two-lane facility, 2.0 for a two-lane facility with passing lanes, 2.9 for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 16 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands the project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. Construction workers could encounter as many as 17 hazardous materials sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040476, Record of Decision--13 pages, October 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440542?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36365025; 11271-040476_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in this final EIS. This attachment to the final EIS provides the record of decision with respect to the preferred alternative as well as an appendix containing belated comments. The alternative preferred by the Montana DeparTment of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide an improved two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include up to 30 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the improved two-lane facility, two-lane facility with passing lanes, four-lane undivided facility, and four-lane divided alternative are $69.7 million, $73.4 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of 1.9 for a two-lane facility, 2.0 for a two-lane facility with passing lanes, 2.9 for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 16 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands the project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. Construction workers could encounter as many as 17 hazardous materials sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040476, Record of Decision--13 pages, October 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365025?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TABLE TOP EXPLORATORY OIL WELL, MOUNTAIN VIEW RANGER DISTRICT, WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1993).
AN  - 36420910; 11191
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of an exploratory oil well in the Main Fork of the Bear River drainage on the Evanston District of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, Utah is proposed. In January 1994, the Forest Service approved Chevron's Surface Use Plan of Operations for the project. Subsequently, Double Eagle Petroleum and Mining assumed control of this project and in September of 1995 initiated construction of the road providing access to the drill site. Construction was halted in November 1995 due to frozen conditions. Due to non-leased lands adjacent to the proposed site, Double Eagle requested a lease suspension which the Bureau of Land Management granted. The project was delayed until a leasing decision was made as part of the 2003 forest plan revision. In 2003, Double Eagle acquired the oil and gas leases on those adjacent lands. Rima Exploration, in partnership with Double Eagle, is not interested in completing this project. Completing the project would involve finishing 2.8 miles of partially constructed access road, construction of a 33.5-acre drill pad, and drilling the exploration well. If the well becomes productive, it would be completed for production. If it turned out to be a dry hole, the drill site and portions of the access road would be reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Access to and development of the site would provide the potential for exploitation of valuable hydrocarbon resources in line with the multiple-use directives outlined in the most recent revision of the forest plan. Oil produced at the well would help provide for regional needs and reduce the nations dependence on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and well site development would displace vegetation and disturb soils during the development and protection stages of the project, and well facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040466, 91 pages, September 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36420910?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TABLE+TOP+EXPLORATORY+OIL+WELL%2C+MOUNTAIN+VIEW+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+WASATCH-CACHE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1993%29.&rft.title=TABLE+TOP+EXPLORATORY+OIL+WELL%2C+MOUNTAIN+VIEW+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+WASATCH-CACHE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1993%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mountain View, Wyoming; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UTAH LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM, UTAH, SALT LAKE, WASATCH, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - UTAH LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM, UTAH, SALT LAKE, WASATCH, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36367609; 11196-040471_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The completion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) in Utah, Salt Lake, Wasatch, and Juab counties, Utah is proposed. The ULS is the last system in the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. The project would deliver the remaining 15,800 acre-feet of uncommitted Bonneville Unit water and, combined with the Interior Department's purchase of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's secondary water rights in Utah Lake, it would deliver 30,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial (M&I) water to southern Utah County and 30,000 acre-feet of M&I water to Salt Lake County. The preferred alternative, known as the Spanish Fork Canyon - Provo Reservoir Canal Alternative, would include five new pipelines for delivery of M&I water and two new hydropower plants and associated transmission lines and substations. Two other alternatives are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. The Bonneville Unit Water Alternative would include three new pipelines and two new hydropower plants and associated transmission lines and substations. This alternative would delivery 15,800 acre-feet of M&I water to southern Utah County. The No Action Alternative would involve no construction and would result in the delivery of none of the additional Bonneville Unit M&I water. The ULS action alternatives would provide in-stream flows in the lower Provo River and Hobble Creek for June sucker spawning and rearing as an element of the June sucker recovery implementation program; the June sucker is a federally protected species. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing the Bonneville Unit by delivering 101,900 acre-feet on an average annual basis from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front Area and project water from other sources to meet some of the M&I demand in the Wasatch Front Area, the project would implement water conservation measures, address all remaining environmental commitments associated with the Bonneville Unit, and maximize current and future M&I water supplies associated with the Bonneville Unit. The quality of surface water and groundwater would be protected and the June recovery implementation program would be supported. Total phosphorus load in Utah Lake would decline by 1.5 tons per year. Fish and wildlife habitat and the associated recreational opportunity spectrum would be enhanced. The proposed hydroelectric unit would provide additional power to the regional grid. The project would result in a significant increase in angler use of the Provo River. Construction activities would create 80-0 to 1,190 jobs, providing for a direct income of $72 million and an indirect income of $79 million NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Stream diversions would reduce flow in the Spanish Fork River, and levels of dissolved solids and phosphorus would increase. Total dissolved solids concentrations in Utah lake would increase slightly and peak at or near the water quality standard for agricultural use. Phosphorus levels in Hobble Creek would increase substantially. Approximately 1.04 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be permanently displaced, and 0.5 acre of riparian forest and 0.7 acre if scrub-shrub wetland would be converted to upland vegetation. Approximately 2.4 acres of wildlife habitat would be displaced, and 43.1 acres of cropland and 16.7 acres of orchards would be displaced temporarily. In addition, 15.4 acres of orchards would be permanently displaced. Construction activities would affect Castilla Warm Springs Spa archaeological site, two historic farmsteads in Salem, and the historic Summit Creek Reservoir Drain Structure and Mapleton Lateral, and two historic canals. One pipeline and its associated facilities would violate the Uinta National Forest visual quality objectives. Approximately 34 miles of pipeline facilities would be constructed in areas likely to contain paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0466D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040471, Final EIS-821 pages and maps, 344 pages, September 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-41
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Uinta National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Utah Lake
KW  - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367609?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UTAH+LAKE+DRAINAGE+BASIN+WATER+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%2C+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+WASATCH%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UTAH+LAKE+DRAINAGE+BASIN+WATER+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%2C+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+WASATCH%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UTAH LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM, UTAH, SALT LAKE, WASATCH, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - UTAH LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM, UTAH, SALT LAKE, WASATCH, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36363589; 11196-040471_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The completion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) in Utah, Salt Lake, Wasatch, and Juab counties, Utah is proposed. The ULS is the last system in the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. The project would deliver the remaining 15,800 acre-feet of uncommitted Bonneville Unit water and, combined with the Interior Department's purchase of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's secondary water rights in Utah Lake, it would deliver 30,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial (M&I) water to southern Utah County and 30,000 acre-feet of M&I water to Salt Lake County. The preferred alternative, known as the Spanish Fork Canyon - Provo Reservoir Canal Alternative, would include five new pipelines for delivery of M&I water and two new hydropower plants and associated transmission lines and substations. Two other alternatives are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. The Bonneville Unit Water Alternative would include three new pipelines and two new hydropower plants and associated transmission lines and substations. This alternative would delivery 15,800 acre-feet of M&I water to southern Utah County. The No Action Alternative would involve no construction and would result in the delivery of none of the additional Bonneville Unit M&I water. The ULS action alternatives would provide in-stream flows in the lower Provo River and Hobble Creek for June sucker spawning and rearing as an element of the June sucker recovery implementation program; the June sucker is a federally protected species. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing the Bonneville Unit by delivering 101,900 acre-feet on an average annual basis from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front Area and project water from other sources to meet some of the M&I demand in the Wasatch Front Area, the project would implement water conservation measures, address all remaining environmental commitments associated with the Bonneville Unit, and maximize current and future M&I water supplies associated with the Bonneville Unit. The quality of surface water and groundwater would be protected and the June recovery implementation program would be supported. Total phosphorus load in Utah Lake would decline by 1.5 tons per year. Fish and wildlife habitat and the associated recreational opportunity spectrum would be enhanced. The proposed hydroelectric unit would provide additional power to the regional grid. The project would result in a significant increase in angler use of the Provo River. Construction activities would create 80-0 to 1,190 jobs, providing for a direct income of $72 million and an indirect income of $79 million NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Stream diversions would reduce flow in the Spanish Fork River, and levels of dissolved solids and phosphorus would increase. Total dissolved solids concentrations in Utah lake would increase slightly and peak at or near the water quality standard for agricultural use. Phosphorus levels in Hobble Creek would increase substantially. Approximately 1.04 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be permanently displaced, and 0.5 acre of riparian forest and 0.7 acre if scrub-shrub wetland would be converted to upland vegetation. Approximately 2.4 acres of wildlife habitat would be displaced, and 43.1 acres of cropland and 16.7 acres of orchards would be displaced temporarily. In addition, 15.4 acres of orchards would be permanently displaced. Construction activities would affect Castilla Warm Springs Spa archaeological site, two historic farmsteads in Salem, and the historic Summit Creek Reservoir Drain Structure and Mapleton Lateral, and two historic canals. One pipeline and its associated facilities would violate the Uinta National Forest visual quality objectives. Approximately 34 miles of pipeline facilities would be constructed in areas likely to contain paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0466D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040471, Final EIS-821 pages and maps, 344 pages, September 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-41
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Uinta National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Utah Lake
KW  - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363589?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UTAH+LAKE+DRAINAGE+BASIN+WATER+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%2C+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+WASATCH%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UTAH+LAKE+DRAINAGE+BASIN+WATER+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%2C+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+WASATCH%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UTAH LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM, UTAH, SALT LAKE, WASATCH, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 16358048; 11196
AB  - PURPOSE: The completion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) in Utah, Salt Lake, Wasatch, and Juab counties, Utah is proposed. The ULS is the last system in the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. The project would deliver the remaining 15,800 acre-feet of uncommitted Bonneville Unit water and, combined with the Interior Department's purchase of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's secondary water rights in Utah Lake, it would deliver 30,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial (M&I) water to southern Utah County and 30,000 acre-feet of M&I water to Salt Lake County. The preferred alternative, known as the Spanish Fork Canyon - Provo Reservoir Canal Alternative, would include five new pipelines for delivery of M&I water and two new hydropower plants and associated transmission lines and substations. Two other alternatives are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. The Bonneville Unit Water Alternative would include three new pipelines and two new hydropower plants and associated transmission lines and substations. This alternative would delivery 15,800 acre-feet of M&I water to southern Utah County. The No Action Alternative would involve no construction and would result in the delivery of none of the additional Bonneville Unit M&I water. The ULS action alternatives would provide in-stream flows in the lower Provo River and Hobble Creek for June sucker spawning and rearing as an element of the June sucker recovery implementation program; the June sucker is a federally protected species. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing the Bonneville Unit by delivering 101,900 acre-feet on an average annual basis from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front Area and project water from other sources to meet some of the M&I demand in the Wasatch Front Area, the project would implement water conservation measures, address all remaining environmental commitments associated with the Bonneville Unit, and maximize current and future M&I water supplies associated with the Bonneville Unit. The quality of surface water and groundwater would be protected and the June recovery implementation program would be supported. Total phosphorus load in Utah Lake would decline by 1.5 tons per year. Fish and wildlife habitat and the associated recreational opportunity spectrum would be enhanced. The proposed hydroelectric unit would provide additional power to the regional grid. The project would result in a significant increase in angler use of the Provo River. Construction activities would create 80-0 to 1,190 jobs, providing for a direct income of $72 million and an indirect income of $79 million NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Stream diversions would reduce flow in the Spanish Fork River, and levels of dissolved solids and phosphorus would increase. Total dissolved solids concentrations in Utah lake would increase slightly and peak at or near the water quality standard for agricultural use. Phosphorus levels in Hobble Creek would increase substantially. Approximately 1.04 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be permanently displaced, and 0.5 acre of riparian forest and 0.7 acre if scrub-shrub wetland would be converted to upland vegetation. Approximately 2.4 acres of wildlife habitat would be displaced, and 43.1 acres of cropland and 16.7 acres of orchards would be displaced temporarily. In addition, 15.4 acres of orchards would be permanently displaced. Construction activities would affect Castilla Warm Springs Spa archaeological site, two historic farmsteads in Salem, and the historic Summit Creek Reservoir Drain Structure and Mapleton Lateral, and two historic canals. One pipeline and its associated facilities would violate the Uinta National Forest visual quality objectives. Approximately 34 miles of pipeline facilities would be constructed in areas likely to contain paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0466D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040471, Final EIS-821 pages and maps, 344 pages, September 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-41
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Uinta National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Utah Lake
KW  - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358048?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UTAH+LAKE+DRAINAGE+BASIN+WATER+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%2C+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+WASATCH%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UTAH+LAKE+DRAINAGE+BASIN+WATER+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%2C+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+WASATCH%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36401631; 11190
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to addresses recreational uses of the 277-mile section of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. For the purposes of the planning effort, the river has been divided into two geographic sections, with a specific set of alternatives for each section. For the upper section, extending from Lees Ferry at River Mile (RM) 0 to Diamond Creek at RM 226, this draft EIS considers eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The upper section alternatives represent different mixes and limits of group size, trip length, launches per day, user-days, seasonal variations, motorized and non-motorized use, commercial and noncommercial use, and other factors. Major issues addressed by the alternatives include those related to the appropriate level of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and visitor experience goals; allocation of use between commercial and noncommercial groups; the noncommercial permit system; the level of motorized and non-motorized boat use; the range of services provided to the public; the use of helicopters to transport river passengers to and from the river; and appropriate levels and types of upstream travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative H) provides for a mix of motorized and non-motorized use, a six-month non-motorized use season, more evenly distributed launch patterns, and changes to allocation and permit systems. For the lower section, extending from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead at RM 227, the EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The park shares a common boundary with the Hualapai Tribe along 108 miles of the river, and the Tribe is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this draft EIS, which includes an alternative identified as preferred by the Tribe. Major differences distinguishing lower section alternatives include limits on commercial launches from Diamond Creek, pontoon boat operations in the Quartermaster area, and facilities and upriver travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) is the same as the Hualapai Tribe's preferred Alternative (Alternative 5) except for the lower than current averages of pontoon boat operations and the allowance of upriver travel to Separation Canyon at full lake levels. Alternative 5 would have much higher than current levels of pontoon boat operations and would restrict upriver travel to below RM 273. Both lower section alternatives would reduce current commercial group sized and allow more overnight use in the section extending from Diamond Creek to Quartermaster. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would provide for appropriately controlled access to the river within Grand Canyon National Park, providing extensive recreational opportunities in a variety of water-related environments while protecting natural resources, particularly wilderness values, associated with the Grand Canyon. Expanded use of the corridor would enhance the local economies along the affected section of the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Motorized and non-motorized users of the river would occasionally come into conflict. Increased visitation would place additional stress on natural and cultural resources as well as park management and operations resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (I6 U.S.C. 1a-1)
JF  - EPA number: 040465, Volume 1--242 pages, Volume 2--620 pages, Appendices--69 pages, September 29, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-51
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Grand Canyon National Park
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36401631?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 29, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36438361; 11272
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438361?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36367146; 11272-040506_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367146?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36366666; 11272-040506_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366666?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36366652; 11272-040506_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366652?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36364954; 11272-040506_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364954?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36362942; 11272-040506_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362942?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE MOWHAWK MOUNTAIN CASINO AND RESORT, 66-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISTION AND CASINO PROJECT, SULIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36360790; 11272-040506_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 66-acre tract adjacent to Anawanna Lake into federal trust for use by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Sullivan County, New York is proposed, along with the approval of a gaming-related management agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Currently, many members of the tribe do not live on the reservation due to lack of housing, resulting in part, to the inability of some members to secure mortgages on the reservation. Because of the restricted fee status of reservation lands, banks are unwilling to provide mortgages to potential reservation homeowners out of concern regarding their ability to foreclose on homes in the event of a default on the mortgage. The project is needed to provide the financial basis for the development of housing for tribe members. The foreseeable consequence of the proposed federal actions would be the development of a casino, hotel, and ancillary facilities on the trust tract and an adjacent 109-acre parcel that would be held in fee by the tribe. Currently the project site is developed as a summer sports academy, which would likely be moved to another location as yet undetermined by the camp owner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 165,000-square-foot casino; 275,715-square-feet of food, beverage, and support area; a 75--room. 443,00-square-foot hotel; a 2,000-seat theater; 10,000 square feet of retail space; structured parking for 6,240 vehicles; a central plant; a facilities garage; a bus parking area; a wastewater treatment plant; and a potable water plant. The development would be located along Anawanna Lake Road and adjacent to Anawanna Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: With the additional funding and resources available due to the proposed action, the tribe would in a much better position to provide for the needs of the community. In additional to enabling tribe members to purchase housing, the proposed action would enable the tribe to meet the medical and health care need for all Akwesasne community members, provide employment in an area currently suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 35 percent and an unusually high poverty rate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of the combined 175-acre site would be impacted by construction activities during development of the facility. The facilities would result in the creation of 31 acres of imperious surface, with the balance of the site left as woodland and open shoreline. The project would alter an historic resort area known as the Borscht Belt. Creation of the facility would place some stress on local community resources, such as schools, law enforcement services, and county services. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, particularly on Route 17. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0434D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040506, Final EIS--412 pages, Appendix I-21 pages and maps, Appendix II--656 pages and maps, Appendix III-880 pages and maps, Volume IV, 376 pages and maps, Appendix V--487 pages, September 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - New York
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360790?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ST.+REGIS+MOHAWK+TRIBE+MOWHAWK+MOUNTAIN+CASINO+AND+RESORT%2C+66-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISTION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SULIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NAVAJO TEN-YEAR FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 1999).
AN  - 36423886; 11172
AB  - PURPOSE: Implementation of a 10-year land and resource management plan for the Navajo Forest of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah is proposed. The 596,724-acre forest lies in the Chuska Mountains and Defiance Plateau areas of the Navajo National along the Arizona-New Mexico border. For hundreds of years the forest has provided the Navajo Tribe with transitional resources, including firewood, construction material, grazing land, food, herbal medicines, ceremonial items, leased areas, and raw material for crafts. The forest continues to provide these same resources as well as a diverse biological habitat for a variety of wildlife, The forest also contains substantial timber resources, with 312,000 acres considered available for commercial timber exploitation. Major issues identified during scoping include those associated with timber resources, other forest resources, socioeconomics, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and air quality. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft supplement to the draft EIS of August 1999. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4), which would implement an even-aged and uneven-aged management approach, would designate 253,754 acres for commercial timberland, 79,205 acres for non-forested uses, 128,894 acres as administratively unavailable, 60,137 acres as less productive, and 74,735 as special management areas. Approximately 15.9 million board-feet could be harvested annually. The alternative would promote timber production withinsites with the highest commercial value; manage the forest landscape toward a mosaic of even-aged forest blocks of 100 acres or less interspersed with lands removed from commercial timber harvest and connected by corridors of uneven-aged forest in which stand structural diversity would be maximized; restore and protect unique wildlife habitat through restriction of timber harvest, forest protection activities, mitigation measures, and monitoring of sensitive species and rangeland; regenerate over-mature stands while maintaining some large trees for recruitment into new stands and increasing average tree diameter across the forest; obtain acceptable forest growth and maximize volume production while providing forage and other multiple-use benefits; provide conditions suitable for establishment of natural and artificial regeneration; satisfy local demand for firewood and poles; control erosion and sedimentation of streams through closure an reclamation of 125 miles of road; and enhance recreational resources by developing a 1.5-mile hiking trail. Silvicultural techniques would include single-tree selection on 24,000 acres, group selection on 8,100 acres, and group shelterwood cut on 13,000 acres. Specific mitigation measures would be outlined for Chuska Tassle-eared squirrel, red squirrel, blue grouse, mule deer, black bear, northern goshawk, Mexican spotted owl, and peregrine falcon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would promote the sustained use and protection of forest resources, guide development of multi-year implementation programs under congressional mandate, and provide direction to archive on-the-ground results. Demand for forest products would be met while protection of the forest ecosystem ould be ensured. Local employment rolls jobs would be expanded, including employment opportunities for Navajo workers. The preferred alternative would have the greatest positive impact with respect to habitat for threatened and endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire would degrade aesthetics and air quality. Timber harvesting would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters, destroy wildlife habitat temporarily, and negatively affect forest homesite residents. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638), and National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (25 U.S.C. 450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0361D, Volume 23, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040447, Draft Supplement--144 pages, Appendices--311 pages, September 14, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Utah
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36423886?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO+TEN-YEAR+FOREST+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+ALTERNATIVES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+AND+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+1999%29.&rft.title=NAVAJO+TEN-YEAR+FOREST+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+ALTERNATIVES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+AND+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+1999%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 14, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCHOODIC DISTRICT, ACADIA NATIONAL PARK, MAINE.
AN  - 36435661; 11168
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Acadia National Park of Maine to alter management direction for the park's Schoodic District is proposed. The park and the Schoodic District encompass 35,500 acres and 2,366 acres, respectively, in the Mains's East Coastal Region, a 20-mile-wide ban extending from Mount Desert Island to Canada. The management options would be in place for the next 15 to 20 years. Between 1935 and 2002, the Schoodic peninsula was home to a Navy base located on 100 acres at Schoodic Point on the far southern tip of the peninsula. In 2002, the base property was transferred from the Navy to the jurisdiction of Acadia National Park. The current general management plan does not address the transfer of the Navy base at Schooldic Point to the National Park Service, requiring that the plan be amended to accommodate this additional area. Acadia's general management plan states that the Schoodic District would be managed to retain opportunities for low-density recreation, current (1992) use levels and parking lot capacities, and the existing natural and solitude values. In addition, the plan states that the district would not be actively promoted or expanded. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with resource management, visitor use and interpretation, cooperative efforts/partnerships, and operational efficiencies. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All alternatives would incorporate the revision of the management zoning designated to conserve and protect natural and cultural resources within the Schoodic District, while allowing for visitor experience of such resources. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would establish a Schoodic Education and Research Center at the former naval base. The center would facilitate scientific inquiry and learning through partnerships among various organizations. Approximately 190 program participants could be housed overnight in dorms and apartments. Approximately 31,500 new annual program participants would be expected at the former Navy base. This historic Rockefeller Building and powerhouse, along with the commissary and medical clinic, would be preserved and the interiors rehabilitated for expanded program use. Other historic sites would be rehabilitated as appropriate. Costs for initial construction of facilities and annual operations and maintenance are estimated at $11.5 million and $2.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred plan would define direction for the management of the entire district, including the former naval base property. Compared with the other two alternatives, the proposed action anticipates the highest number of visitors and staff with respect to use of the district as well as significantly increased opportunities for education and research. Removal of unused buildings of no historical significance could result in the restoration of 16 acres of disturbed lands to native plant communities. Increased employment related to the new management regime would result in substantial socioeconomic benefits for the local community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would result in greater demand for water, power, and sewage services and in the generation of additional solid and liquid wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040443, 199 pages, September 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Shores
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Acadia National Park
KW  - Maine
KW  - Schoodic Point
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435661?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCHOODIC+DISTRICT%2C+ACADIA+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MAINE.&rft.title=SCHOODIC+DISTRICT%2C+ACADIA+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MAINE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bar Harbor, Maine; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCHOODIC DISTRICT, ACADIA NATIONAL PARK, MAINE. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SCHOODIC DISTRICT, ACADIA NATIONAL PARK, MAINE.
AN  - 36378256; 11168-040443_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Acadia National Park of Maine to alter management direction for the park's Schoodic District is proposed. The park and the Schoodic District encompass 35,500 acres and 2,366 acres, respectively, in the Mains's East Coastal Region, a 20-mile-wide ban extending from Mount Desert Island to Canada. The management options would be in place for the next 15 to 20 years. Between 1935 and 2002, the Schoodic peninsula was home to a Navy base located on 100 acres at Schoodic Point on the far southern tip of the peninsula. In 2002, the base property was transferred from the Navy to the jurisdiction of Acadia National Park. The current general management plan does not address the transfer of the Navy base at Schooldic Point to the National Park Service, requiring that the plan be amended to accommodate this additional area. Acadia's general management plan states that the Schoodic District would be managed to retain opportunities for low-density recreation, current (1992) use levels and parking lot capacities, and the existing natural and solitude values. In addition, the plan states that the district would not be actively promoted or expanded. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with resource management, visitor use and interpretation, cooperative efforts/partnerships, and operational efficiencies. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All alternatives would incorporate the revision of the management zoning designated to conserve and protect natural and cultural resources within the Schoodic District, while allowing for visitor experience of such resources. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would establish a Schoodic Education and Research Center at the former naval base. The center would facilitate scientific inquiry and learning through partnerships among various organizations. Approximately 190 program participants could be housed overnight in dorms and apartments. Approximately 31,500 new annual program participants would be expected at the former Navy base. This historic Rockefeller Building and powerhouse, along with the commissary and medical clinic, would be preserved and the interiors rehabilitated for expanded program use. Other historic sites would be rehabilitated as appropriate. Costs for initial construction of facilities and annual operations and maintenance are estimated at $11.5 million and $2.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred plan would define direction for the management of the entire district, including the former naval base property. Compared with the other two alternatives, the proposed action anticipates the highest number of visitors and staff with respect to use of the district as well as significantly increased opportunities for education and research. Removal of unused buildings of no historical significance could result in the restoration of 16 acres of disturbed lands to native plant communities. Increased employment related to the new management regime would result in substantial socioeconomic benefits for the local community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would result in greater demand for water, power, and sewage services and in the generation of additional solid and liquid wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040443, 199 pages, September 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Shores
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Acadia National Park
KW  - Maine
KW  - Schoodic Point
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378256?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCHOODIC+DISTRICT%2C+ACADIA+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MAINE.&rft.title=SCHOODIC+DISTRICT%2C+ACADIA+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MAINE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bar Harbor, Maine; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASTLE PEAK AND EIGHTMILE FLAT OIL AND GAS EXPANSION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36437787; 11167
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Cattle Peak and Eight-mile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project in Duchesne and Uintah counties of northeastern Utah is proposed. The project would involve drilling and production operations or the exploitation of oil and gas resources, along with ancilliary facilities, including access roads, pipelines, and protection facilities. The project would constitute an expansion of existing water-flood oil recovery activities undertaken by the applicant, Inland Resources Inc., in the project area. The expansion would encompass 64,000 acres, with project-associated surface disturbance limited to 3,700 acres. The development would occur primarily on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah. Currently, the project area includes 671 production and injection wells. The proposed new drilling would create an additional 973 wells over a 12-year period. The applicant would drill an additional 70 to 130 wells per year until the resource base was fully developed. The new wells would be drilled on a 40-acre spacing pattern to recover oil and gas reserves from the Green River Formation at depths of 4,500 to 6,500 feet. The applicant would drill approximately 50 percent of the wells as production wells and the remainder as injection wells. To increase the crude oil recovery rate from this field, the applicant would inject water under pressure into the oil-bearing formation to force out a greater quantity of oil than would be produced with conventional pumping. Water for the project would be supplied via existing Water District contracts, the Green River, and various oil- and water-bearing reservoirs within the Green River Formation underlying the field. At peak usage, the project would require 2,333 acre-feet 83 miles of new and upgraded roads and 80 acres of injection water distribution lines, gas gathering pipelines, pumps, and oil storage tanks. The applicant would implement voluntary environmental measures to address sensitive cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing, noxious weeds, special status species habitats, aesthetics, and hazardous materials. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers an alternative action (Alternative A) and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the drilling of 922 wells, 51 fewer wells than planned under the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitation of the well field would yield 5,071 barrels of crude oil and 6.5 million cubic feet of saleable natural gas per day, ensuring a reliable supply of gas to the region and reducing the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas. Expansion of the well field would employ an addition 162 workers and 47 support jobs within the community. Federal oil and gas royalties would amount to $6.1 million per year, and annual county receipts would amount to $3.8 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Well field injection wells would consume 1,942 acre-feet of water per year from the Green River alluvium. Approximately 263 wells and associated roads are located within 200 feet of wash channels, exposing them to damage from flooding. Approximately 1,171 acres of surface disturbance could occur on sites containing paleontological resources of potential high significance. Wells and ancillary facilities would disturb 3,582 acres of native shrub-land habitats, most of which currently offer some value as wildlife habitat. Vegetation on 73 percent of the surface disturbance associated with the preferred alternative would require up to 50 years to recover due to poor soil conditions. Special status species to be affected would include plants, birds, riparian species, mammals, and fish. At maximum well field build-out, 333 livestock and wildlife animal unit months (AUMs) out of a total of 11,316 AUMs would be unavailable each year over the life of the project, and minor changes in seasonal stocking rates could occur on three allotments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040442, 744 pages, September 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT-080-2002-168
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437787?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASTLE PEAK AND EIGHTMILE FLAT OIL AND GAS EXPANSION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CASTLE PEAK AND EIGHTMILE FLAT OIL AND GAS EXPANSION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36379397; 11167-040442_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Cattle Peak and Eight-mile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project in Duchesne and Uintah counties of northeastern Utah is proposed. The project would involve drilling and production operations or the exploitation of oil and gas resources, along with ancilliary facilities, including access roads, pipelines, and protection facilities. The project would constitute an expansion of existing water-flood oil recovery activities undertaken by the applicant, Inland Resources Inc., in the project area. The expansion would encompass 64,000 acres, with project-associated surface disturbance limited to 3,700 acres. The development would occur primarily on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah. Currently, the project area includes 671 production and injection wells. The proposed new drilling would create an additional 973 wells over a 12-year period. The applicant would drill an additional 70 to 130 wells per year until the resource base was fully developed. The new wells would be drilled on a 40-acre spacing pattern to recover oil and gas reserves from the Green River Formation at depths of 4,500 to 6,500 feet. The applicant would drill approximately 50 percent of the wells as production wells and the remainder as injection wells. To increase the crude oil recovery rate from this field, the applicant would inject water under pressure into the oil-bearing formation to force out a greater quantity of oil than would be produced with conventional pumping. Water for the project would be supplied via existing Water District contracts, the Green River, and various oil- and water-bearing reservoirs within the Green River Formation underlying the field. At peak usage, the project would require 2,333 acre-feet 83 miles of new and upgraded roads and 80 acres of injection water distribution lines, gas gathering pipelines, pumps, and oil storage tanks. The applicant would implement voluntary environmental measures to address sensitive cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing, noxious weeds, special status species habitats, aesthetics, and hazardous materials. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers an alternative action (Alternative A) and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the drilling of 922 wells, 51 fewer wells than planned under the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitation of the well field would yield 5,071 barrels of crude oil and 6.5 million cubic feet of saleable natural gas per day, ensuring a reliable supply of gas to the region and reducing the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas. Expansion of the well field would employ an addition 162 workers and 47 support jobs within the community. Federal oil and gas royalties would amount to $6.1 million per year, and annual county receipts would amount to $3.8 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Well field injection wells would consume 1,942 acre-feet of water per year from the Green River alluvium. Approximately 263 wells and associated roads are located within 200 feet of wash channels, exposing them to damage from flooding. Approximately 1,171 acres of surface disturbance could occur on sites containing paleontological resources of potential high significance. Wells and ancillary facilities would disturb 3,582 acres of native shrub-land habitats, most of which currently offer some value as wildlife habitat. Vegetation on 73 percent of the surface disturbance associated with the preferred alternative would require up to 50 years to recover due to poor soil conditions. Special status species to be affected would include plants, birds, riparian species, mammals, and fish. At maximum well field build-out, 333 livestock and wildlife animal unit months (AUMs) out of a total of 11,316 AUMs would be unavailable each year over the life of the project, and minor changes in seasonal stocking rates could occur on three allotments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040442, 744 pages, September 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT-080-2002-168
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379397?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36436236; 11160
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) is proposed. The monument, which was established by Presidential Proclamation on January 11, 2000, consists of approximately 1,000 acres of rocks and small islands that stand above mean high tide within a vast 14,600-square-nautical-mile segment of the Pacific Ocean's continental shelf. The rocks and small islands along California's coast have been withheld from most land uses by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) since 1983 and from mineral exploration and recovery since 1930. Minimal management activity has been necessary over the past 10 years, and no comprehensive management plan has been developed for the area. Increasing pressure on coastal resources due to population growth, increasing levels of coastal activity, and the presence of wildlife species with very restricted habitat availability were among the reasons cites for the designation of the area as a monument. The CCNM is part of a recently established National Landscape Conservation System and is among the nation's most unique national monuments. The Presidential Proclamation directed the Secretary of the Interior to manage the monument through the BLM; hence, the BLM initiated the development of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the lands contained within the monument. Best management practices of consultation, communication, and co-operations have been used throughout the planning process. Key issues addressed during scoping for the resource management plan include those associated with visual resources, wildlife habitat, vegetation, cultural sites, recreation resources, education and interpretation, research, special area designations, land tenure, land use authorizations, cadastral support, and geologic, soil, and paleontologic resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance management strategies considering better coordination of resource protection (focusing on seabirds and marine mammals), support for low-impact recreation, and the need for further research. Action Alternative B would emphasize strict natural and cultural resource protection across the entire CCNM, with recreational opportunities provided primarily through the use of state and local government facilities. Research would also be emphasized to enhance resource protection. Action Alternative 3 would promote a greater variety of active recreation on and adjacent to the CCNM and active interpretation and environmental education programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for the lands of the CCNM. the plan would identify and attempt to resolve a wide range of resource and land use issues through a series of long- and short-term management practices that could be cooperative pursued by the BLM and its core management partners, namely, the appropriate state departments, as well as a much broader group of partner agencies and agencies with stewardship or regulatory interests in California's coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In effecting the directives of the Presidential Proclamation, the preferred alternative would continue to prohibit exploitative uses of CCNM lands and waters and prevent some recreational uses of the area as well. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040435, 821 pages and maps, September 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/EIS-0081790-1600
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Marine Mammals
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reefs
KW  - Research
KW  - Shores
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - California Coastal National Monument
KW  - Pacific Ocean
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436236?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Monterey, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, UTAH AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36435309; 11159
AB  - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyon lands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450).
JF  - EPA number: 040434, Executive Summary-50 pages and maps, Draft EIS--309 pages, Technical Appendices-375 pages, September 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-40
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Dams
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Insects
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Ashley National Forest
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Green River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435309?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, UTAH AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36372417; 11159-040434_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyon lands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450).
JF  - EPA number: 040434, Executive Summary-50 pages and maps, Draft EIS--309 pages, Technical Appendices-375 pages, September 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-40
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Dams
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Insects
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Ashley National Forest
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Green River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371477; 11160-040435_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) is proposed. The monument, which was established by Presidential Proclamation on January 11, 2000, consists of approximately 1,000 acres of rocks and small islands that stand above mean high tide within a vast 14,600-square-nautical-mile segment of the Pacific Ocean's continental shelf. The rocks and small islands along California's coast have been withheld from most land uses by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) since 1983 and from mineral exploration and recovery since 1930. Minimal management activity has been necessary over the past 10 years, and no comprehensive management plan has been developed for the area. Increasing pressure on coastal resources due to population growth, increasing levels of coastal activity, and the presence of wildlife species with very restricted habitat availability were among the reasons cites for the designation of the area as a monument. The CCNM is part of a recently established National Landscape Conservation System and is among the nation's most unique national monuments. The Presidential Proclamation directed the Secretary of the Interior to manage the monument through the BLM; hence, the BLM initiated the development of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the lands contained within the monument. Best management practices of consultation, communication, and co-operations have been used throughout the planning process. Key issues addressed during scoping for the resource management plan include those associated with visual resources, wildlife habitat, vegetation, cultural sites, recreation resources, education and interpretation, research, special area designations, land tenure, land use authorizations, cadastral support, and geologic, soil, and paleontologic resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance management strategies considering better coordination of resource protection (focusing on seabirds and marine mammals), support for low-impact recreation, and the need for further research. Action Alternative B would emphasize strict natural and cultural resource protection across the entire CCNM, with recreational opportunities provided primarily through the use of state and local government facilities. Research would also be emphasized to enhance resource protection. Action Alternative 3 would promote a greater variety of active recreation on and adjacent to the CCNM and active interpretation and environmental education programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for the lands of the CCNM. the plan would identify and attempt to resolve a wide range of resource and land use issues through a series of long- and short-term management practices that could be cooperative pursued by the BLM and its core management partners, namely, the appropriate state departments, as well as a much broader group of partner agencies and agencies with stewardship or regulatory interests in California's coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In effecting the directives of the Presidential Proclamation, the preferred alternative would continue to prohibit exploitative uses of CCNM lands and waters and prevent some recreational uses of the area as well. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040435, 821 pages and maps, September 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/EIS-0081790-1600
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Marine Mammals
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reefs
KW  - Research
KW  - Shores
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - California Coastal National Monument
KW  - Pacific Ocean
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371477?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Monterey, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, UTAH AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36371425; 11159-040434_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyon lands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450).
JF  - EPA number: 040434, Executive Summary-50 pages and maps, Draft EIS--309 pages, Technical Appendices-375 pages, September 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-40
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Dams
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Insects
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Ashley National Forest
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Green River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371425?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36441783; 11157
AB  - PURPOSE: The authorization of the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC) on property administered by the Carson National Forest and the Taos field office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba and Taos counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 115-kilovolt (kV) line would extend from the existing 115-kV line would extend from the existing 115-kV line in the 115.345-kV corridor just north of Black Mesa to a proposed substation to be located on BLM lands north of the Ojo Caliente community. Besides serving the Ojo Caliente area, KCEC is responsible for serving other areas in Taos County. Electrical service has never been available to residents along a portion of US 285 between the existing 25-kV corridor and Tres Piedras. Service should also be provided to the residents along US 285. In addition to A No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), two other alternatives and an option for a Tres Piedras Connection are analyzed in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative C would tap into the existing 115-kV line in the 1115/345-kV corridor near Carson and run within the existing 25-kV corridor to the proposed substation on BLM lands near Ojo Caliente. Alternative D would tap into the existing 115kV line adjacent to Forest Road 285P, crossing U.S. 285 close to a 90-degree turn in the highway, then run parallel to US 285, at a distance of up to 0.5 mile north of the highway, to the proposed substation site near Ojo Caliente. The Tres Piedras Connection Option is not a standalone alternative; it would allow for the construction of a 25-kV distribution line in the vicinity of the microwave station just north of the intersection of New Mexico Route 567 and US 285 and connect into the existing line that extends south from Tres Piedras along US 285. The preferred alternatives has been identified as Alternative D with the Tres Piedras Connection Option. Estimated project construction and annual maintenance costs for Alternative D are estimated at $2.8 million and $6,700, respectively. Construction and annual maintenance costs associated with the option are estimated at $163,000 and $1,900, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would provide adequate power delivery capacity for current ad gureu needs in the region, prevent power outages and fluctuations, and improve reliability and reduce line costs for all KCEC users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would disturb 39.7 acres of land and mar visual quality along new corridor sections. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040432, 241 pages, September 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Forests
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Carson National Forest
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441783?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Taos, New Mexico; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36378306; 11157-040432_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The authorization of the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC) on property administered by the Carson National Forest and the Taos field office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba and Taos counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 115-kilovolt (kV) line would extend from the existing 115-kV line would extend from the existing 115-kV line in the 115.345-kV corridor just north of Black Mesa to a proposed substation to be located on BLM lands north of the Ojo Caliente community. Besides serving the Ojo Caliente area, KCEC is responsible for serving other areas in Taos County. Electrical service has never been available to residents along a portion of US 285 between the existing 25-kV corridor and Tres Piedras. Service should also be provided to the residents along US 285. In addition to A No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), two other alternatives and an option for a Tres Piedras Connection are analyzed in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative C would tap into the existing 115-kV line in the 1115/345-kV corridor near Carson and run within the existing 25-kV corridor to the proposed substation on BLM lands near Ojo Caliente. Alternative D would tap into the existing 115kV line adjacent to Forest Road 285P, crossing U.S. 285 close to a 90-degree turn in the highway, then run parallel to US 285, at a distance of up to 0.5 mile north of the highway, to the proposed substation site near Ojo Caliente. The Tres Piedras Connection Option is not a standalone alternative; it would allow for the construction of a 25-kV distribution line in the vicinity of the microwave station just north of the intersection of New Mexico Route 567 and US 285 and connect into the existing line that extends south from Tres Piedras along US 285. The preferred alternatives has been identified as Alternative D with the Tres Piedras Connection Option. Estimated project construction and annual maintenance costs for Alternative D are estimated at $2.8 million and $6,700, respectively. Construction and annual maintenance costs associated with the option are estimated at $163,000 and $1,900, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would provide adequate power delivery capacity for current ad gureu needs in the region, prevent power outages and fluctuations, and improve reliability and reduce line costs for all KCEC users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would disturb 39.7 acres of land and mar visual quality along new corridor sections. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040432, 241 pages, September 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Forests
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Carson National Forest
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378306?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Taos, New Mexico; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LAS VEGAS VALLEY DISPOSAL BOUNDARY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36440516; 11152
AB  - PURPOSE: The disposal and use of public land under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Clark County encompasses the Las Vegas metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The population of Las Vegas is expected to increase from 1.69 million in 2004 to 2.18 million by 2018. The BLM lands in the Las Vegas Valley are being surrounded by more urbanized private lands, thus making it difficult for the BLM to manage these lands properly. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the lands under consideration would continue to be managed via the 198 Las Vegas Resource management plan. Under the proposed action, all remaining BLM lands within the disposal boundary area, totaling approximately 46,700 acres, would be sold or transferred by 2005. The third alternative, known as the Conservation Transfer Alternative, would be similar to the proposed action, except approximately 5,000 acres of sensitive vegetation and unique paleontological resources within the disposal boundary area would be transferred to entities that would protect or mitigate any resource damage or disturbance. Under either action alternative, the lands within the disposal boundary area would be withdrawn from entry and mineral resource development. No new sand and gravel operations would be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of the BLM-administered land would allow local governments to control, manage, and regulate the future uses of these lands. The land disposal action would also make these public lands available for use by local governments for public purposes or for purchase at auction to accommodate the rapid urban development in the Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Action alternatives would result in the generation of an additional 40,00 tons of air pollutants per year by 2018. Disposal-related construction and operation emissions would average approximately 17 percent of the total emissions for Clark County. Steep slopes and unstable areas along Las Vegas Wash could present geological hazards. Erosion and sedimentation would increase in the area due to construction and operation activities. Shallow groundwater could be encountered during excavation. Annual water consumption increases due to developments under the proposed action and the Conservation Transfer Alternative would amount to 50,000 acre-feet and 43,750 acre-feet, respectively. Development and use of the disposed lands would displace desert wildlife habitat, including habitat for several sensitive species of plants and animals. The disposal area affected by the proposed action would include nine significant archaeological sites and the area affected by Conservation Transfer Alternative would include two of those sites. The proposed action could affect 438 paleontological sites. Land use planning could be affected negatively by either alternative, though the Conservation Transfer Alternative would have the greatest impact due to fragmentation of development possibilities. Access to lands historically used for recreation would be lost with the implementation of either alternative, with the greatest impact occurring under the proposed action. Potential wilderness areas could be affected by development. Hazardous materials present on development sites could have a direct effect on development possibilities. Urban and residential development would result in the loss of 3,000 acres of rangeland, removing this land from use by livestock grazing concerns. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Southern Nevada Public Land management Act of 1998.
JF  - EPA number: 040427, 398 pages, September 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Wastes
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-46
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Sand
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Urban Development
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Southern Nevada Public Land management Act of 1998, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440516?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAS+VEGAS+VALLEY+DISPOSAL+BOUNDARY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LAS+VEGAS+VALLEY+DISPOSAL+BOUNDARY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES.
AN  - 36437577; 11153
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and species-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind energy development alterative, additional wind energy development on BL-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird mortality due to blade collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040428, 681 pages, September 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-41
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Birds
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437577?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES.
AN  - 36372797; 11153-040428_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and species-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind energy development alterative, additional wind energy development on BL-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird mortality due to blade collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040428, 681 pages, September 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-41
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Birds
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372797?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36433589; 11150
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 10.75 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 16.2 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040425, 617 pages and maps, September 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433589?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36378247; 11150-040425_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 10.75 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 16.2 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040425, 617 pages and maps, September 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378247?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36371196; 11150-040425_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 10.75 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 16.2 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040425, 617 pages and maps, September 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371196?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHESAPEAKE BAY SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36440623; 11146
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new unit within the National Park System (NPS0 focused on the Chesapeake Bay is proposed. The new unit could encompass lands in NPS lands in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The bay is a vast estuary, encompassing 2,500 square miles of water, known not just for its size, but also for its high productivity as a natural ecosystem. The bay is fed by over 124,000 miles of rivers and streams from a 64,000-square-mile watershed. The study at hand is intended to: 1) examine whether having additional Chesapeake Bay resources within the NPS would make sense and would advance partnership efforts to conserve and celebrate the bay; 2) define any concepts for the means by which resources or areas of the bay might fit within the NPS; and 3) make recommendations regarding these findings. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the existing role of the National Park Service with respect to Chesapeake Bay conservation, restoration, and interpretation, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would enhance and build upon the existing Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, the watershed-wide partnership system of more than 140 parks, refuges, maritime museums, historic sites, and trails around the bay watershed. Alternative C would create a water-based national park that exemplified the larger bay's estuarine character with only limited land resources for access and interpretation. Alternative D would create a reserve representative of the Chesapeake's maritime and agricultural heritage. Alternative E would establish a national ecological and cultural preserve focused on one exemplary bay tributary, extending from the headwater stream to the open bay, as a representative the larger watershed. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for management of the new NPS unit at the outset. For this to occur, Alternative B would be implemented in is entirety, including designation of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network as a permanent program of the NPS with an ongoing funding commitment, stimulation of the creation of two new partnership interpretive/education centers via the establishment of two matching grants, and enhancement of links to surrounding working landscapes through the network system. At some time in the future, alternatives C, D, and E could make signifi8cant contributions to the management regime. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B would provide conservation, interpretive, educational, and public access benefits over a broader scope and regional context than the other alternatives. In addition, the construction of interpretive centers and associated improvements under Alternative B would have fewer impacts to the environment due to the fact that any construction/development would occur inwould have fewer impacts to the environment due to the fact that any construction/development would occur in more developed areas than under the other alternatives. Alternatives C, D, and E, though not watershed-wide in scope, would have broader scope and environmental benefits than Alternative C, which would focus solely on the aquatic system and Alternative A, a core part of which expires in 2008. Moreover, alternatives D and E would have a direct conservation benefit through land conservation strategies that are more specific than those under Alternative B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction/development activities would result in disturbance of estuarine and/or watershed-related habitat, including terrestrial soils and vegetation and aquatic habitat. Increased access to the bay area would increase the level of disturbance by recreationists and supporting commercial interests. LEGAL MANDATES: Chesapeake Bay Initiative of 1998, as amended, and Chesapeake Bay restoration Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0033D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040421, 227 pages, September 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-35
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Bays
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Chesapeake Bay
KW  - Delaware
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Maryland
KW  - New York
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Virginia
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Chesapeake Bay Initiative of 1998, as amended, Funding
KW  - Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHESAPEAKE+BAY+SPECIAL+RESOURCE+STUDY%2C+DELAWARE%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA%2C+MARYLAND%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CHESAPEAKE+BAY+SPECIAL+RESOURCE+STUDY%2C+DELAWARE%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA%2C+MARYLAND%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Annapolis, Maryland; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHESAPEAKE BAY SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CHESAPEAKE BAY SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36371150; 11146-040421_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new unit within the National Park System (NPS0 focused on the Chesapeake Bay is proposed. The new unit could encompass lands in NPS lands in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The bay is a vast estuary, encompassing 2,500 square miles of water, known not just for its size, but also for its high productivity as a natural ecosystem. The bay is fed by over 124,000 miles of rivers and streams from a 64,000-square-mile watershed. The study at hand is intended to: 1) examine whether having additional Chesapeake Bay resources within the NPS would make sense and would advance partnership efforts to conserve and celebrate the bay; 2) define any concepts for the means by which resources or areas of the bay might fit within the NPS; and 3) make recommendations regarding these findings. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the existing role of the National Park Service with respect to Chesapeake Bay conservation, restoration, and interpretation, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would enhance and build upon the existing Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, the watershed-wide partnership system of more than 140 parks, refuges, maritime museums, historic sites, and trails around the bay watershed. Alternative C would create a water-based national park that exemplified the larger bay's estuarine character with only limited land resources for access and interpretation. Alternative D would create a reserve representative of the Chesapeake's maritime and agricultural heritage. Alternative E would establish a national ecological and cultural preserve focused on one exemplary bay tributary, extending from the headwater stream to the open bay, as a representative the larger watershed. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for management of the new NPS unit at the outset. For this to occur, Alternative B would be implemented in is entirety, including designation of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network as a permanent program of the NPS with an ongoing funding commitment, stimulation of the creation of two new partnership interpretive/education centers via the establishment of two matching grants, and enhancement of links to surrounding working landscapes through the network system. At some time in the future, alternatives C, D, and E could make signifi8cant contributions to the management regime. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B would provide conservation, interpretive, educational, and public access benefits over a broader scope and regional context than the other alternatives. In addition, the construction of interpretive centers and associated improvements under Alternative B would have fewer impacts to the environment due to the fact that any construction/development would occur inwould have fewer impacts to the environment due to the fact that any construction/development would occur in more developed areas than under the other alternatives. Alternatives C, D, and E, though not watershed-wide in scope, would have broader scope and environmental benefits than Alternative C, which would focus solely on the aquatic system and Alternative A, a core part of which expires in 2008. Moreover, alternatives D and E would have a direct conservation benefit through land conservation strategies that are more specific than those under Alternative B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction/development activities would result in disturbance of estuarine and/or watershed-related habitat, including terrestrial soils and vegetation and aquatic habitat. Increased access to the bay area would increase the level of disturbance by recreationists and supporting commercial interests. LEGAL MANDATES: Chesapeake Bay Initiative of 1998, as amended, and Chesapeake Bay restoration Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0033D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040421, 227 pages, September 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-35
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Bays
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Chesapeake Bay
KW  - Delaware
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Maryland
KW  - New York
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Virginia
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Chesapeake Bay Initiative of 1998, as amended, Funding
KW  - Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371150?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHESAPEAKE+BAY+SPECIAL+RESOURCE+STUDY%2C+DELAWARE%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA%2C+MARYLAND%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CHESAPEAKE+BAY+SPECIAL+RESOURCE+STUDY%2C+DELAWARE%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA%2C+MARYLAND%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Annapolis, Maryland; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN: POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH DISTRICT OF GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36440013; 11141
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Point Reyes National Seashore and the North District of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) of California is proposed. Point Reyes National Seashore is currently operating under a fire management plan formulated in 1993. The 1993 plan addresses various fire management techniques, including fire suppression, prescribed fire, and limited use of mechanical treatments to reduce forest fuels. The proposed plan would expand the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment for all lands under its management. Active fire management in the area over the past 150 years has dramatically changed native ecosystems, resulting in systems characterized by forest and shrub encroachment on grasslands, decadence and death of fire-adapted species, and extremely dense forest. Fire suppression management has also resulted in a dangerous accumulation of flammable or hazardous fuels in the form of large quantities of dead and downed trees and branches that have accumulated in overly dense forests and shrublands. The new plan would provide a framework for all fire management activities for the Seashore and the North District of the GGNRA, including suppression of unplanned ignitions, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuels treatment; the plan would guide fire management for the next 10 to 15 years. The plan would include concise program objectives, details on staffing and equipment, and comprehensive information, guidelines, and protocols relating to the management of unplanned wildfire, prescribed burning, and mechanical fuels treatment. Three alternative, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current fire management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include a wildland-urban interface initiative program, maintenance of fire roads and trails, clearing of vegetation around buildings, suppression of unplanned ignitions, a public information and education component, a fire monitoring program, and creation of a fire suppression equipment at a central location. Alternatives B and C would both represent significant increases in the level of fuels reduction through prescribed fire and mechanical treatments; the alternatives would implement prescribed burning on 2,000 acres and 3,500 acres, respectively. The most significant difference distinguishing the two alternatives would involve the marked increase in efforts to enhance natural resources under Alternative C, including efforts to increase the abundance and distribution of threatened and endangered species, to reduce infestations of invasive, non-native plants, and to increase native plant cover. Alternative C has been selected at the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would adhere to National Park Service policy requiring that each park with vegetation capable of burning prepare a plan to guide a fire management program that is responsive to natural and cultural resource objective, reduces risk to developed facilities and adjacent communities, and provides for public and staff safety. Action alternatives would increase vegetative diversity in the park, help the park ecosystem return to its historical condition, and reduce encroachment by non-native species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning and mechanical removal of vegetation and organic debris would result in the disturbance of soils and the alteration of soil chemistry, and destruction of vegetation would reduce habitat available to wildlife until the affected areas regenerate. Receiving surface waters, including wetlands, would suffer from increased sedimentation and increased nitrogen levels over the short-term. Prescribed burning would also degrade air quality during and shortly after burns. Numerous cultural resource sites, mostly archaeological sites, would be exposed to heat and fire during prescribed burns, and mechanical treatment measures could also disturb sites. Treatments would prevent visitation by recreationists during their duration, and visual effects of treatments would degrade the recreational experience of the affected areas temporarily. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0299D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040416, 572 pages, August 31, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Insects
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - Point Reyes National Seashore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440013?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+NORTH+DISTRICT+OF+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+NORTH+DISTRICT+OF+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN: POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH DISTRICT OF GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN: POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH DISTRICT OF GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371576; 11141-040416_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Point Reyes National Seashore and the North District of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) of California is proposed. Point Reyes National Seashore is currently operating under a fire management plan formulated in 1993. The 1993 plan addresses various fire management techniques, including fire suppression, prescribed fire, and limited use of mechanical treatments to reduce forest fuels. The proposed plan would expand the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment for all lands under its management. Active fire management in the area over the past 150 years has dramatically changed native ecosystems, resulting in systems characterized by forest and shrub encroachment on grasslands, decadence and death of fire-adapted species, and extremely dense forest. Fire suppression management has also resulted in a dangerous accumulation of flammable or hazardous fuels in the form of large quantities of dead and downed trees and branches that have accumulated in overly dense forests and shrublands. The new plan would provide a framework for all fire management activities for the Seashore and the North District of the GGNRA, including suppression of unplanned ignitions, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuels treatment; the plan would guide fire management for the next 10 to 15 years. The plan would include concise program objectives, details on staffing and equipment, and comprehensive information, guidelines, and protocols relating to the management of unplanned wildfire, prescribed burning, and mechanical fuels treatment. Three alternative, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current fire management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include a wildland-urban interface initiative program, maintenance of fire roads and trails, clearing of vegetation around buildings, suppression of unplanned ignitions, a public information and education component, a fire monitoring program, and creation of a fire suppression equipment at a central location. Alternatives B and C would both represent significant increases in the level of fuels reduction through prescribed fire and mechanical treatments; the alternatives would implement prescribed burning on 2,000 acres and 3,500 acres, respectively. The most significant difference distinguishing the two alternatives would involve the marked increase in efforts to enhance natural resources under Alternative C, including efforts to increase the abundance and distribution of threatened and endangered species, to reduce infestations of invasive, non-native plants, and to increase native plant cover. Alternative C has been selected at the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would adhere to National Park Service policy requiring that each park with vegetation capable of burning prepare a plan to guide a fire management program that is responsive to natural and cultural resource objective, reduces risk to developed facilities and adjacent communities, and provides for public and staff safety. Action alternatives would increase vegetative diversity in the park, help the park ecosystem return to its historical condition, and reduce encroachment by non-native species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning and mechanical removal of vegetation and organic debris would result in the disturbance of soils and the alteration of soil chemistry, and destruction of vegetation would reduce habitat available to wildlife until the affected areas regenerate. Receiving surface waters, including wetlands, would suffer from increased sedimentation and increased nitrogen levels over the short-term. Prescribed burning would also degrade air quality during and shortly after burns. Numerous cultural resource sites, mostly archaeological sites, would be exposed to heat and fire during prescribed burns, and mechanical treatment measures could also disturb sites. Treatments would prevent visitation by recreationists during their duration, and visual effects of treatments would degrade the recreational experience of the affected areas temporarily. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0299D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040416, 572 pages, August 31, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Insects
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - Point Reyes National Seashore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371576?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+NORTH+DISTRICT+OF+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+NORTH+DISTRICT+OF+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36436321; 11139
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436321?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 38 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36380086; 11139-040414_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 38
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380086?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 31 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379843; 11139-040414_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 31
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379843?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 44 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379716; 11139-040414_0044
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 44
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379716?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379130; 11139-040414_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379130?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379031; 11139-040414_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379031?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36378915; 11139-040414_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378915?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36378783; 11139-040414_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 30
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378783?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 36 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36378722; 11139-040414_0036
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 36
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378722?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36378607; 11139-040414_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378607?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36378388; 11139-040414_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378388?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36373170; 11139-040414_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373170?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 35 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36372936; 11139-040414_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 35
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372936?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 33 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36372830; 11139-040414_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 33
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372830?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 43 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36372570; 11139-040414_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 43
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372570?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 32 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36371648; 11139-040414_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 32
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371648?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36370177; 11139-040414_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370177?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36370094; 11139-040414_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370094?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 41 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36369872; 11139-040414_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 41
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369872?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 37 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36369789; 11139-040414_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 37
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369789?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 48 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36369704; 11139-040414_0048
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 48
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369704?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36367359; 11139-040414_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367359?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36367319; 11139-040414_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367319?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36367223; 11139-040414_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367223?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 42 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36367185; 11139-040414_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 42
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367185?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 34 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36367103; 11139-040414_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 34
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367103?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36366996; 11139-040414_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 27
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366996?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36366908; 11139-040414_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 26
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366908?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 47 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36366799; 11139-040414_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 47
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366799?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36366327; 11139-040414_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 21
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366327?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36366220; 11139-040414_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366220?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36365343; 11139-040414_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365343?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36365194; 11139-040414_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 18
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365194?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 40 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36365059; 11139-040414_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 40
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365059?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36364918; 11139-040414_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 24
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364918?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 50 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36364791; 11139-040414_0050
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 50
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364791?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 49 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36364636; 11139-040414_0049
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 49
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36364451; 11139-040414_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364451?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 45 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36364129; 11139-040414_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 45
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364129?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 39 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363978; 11139-040414_0039
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 39
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363978?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363892; 11139-040414_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 19
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363892?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363828; 11139-040414_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 29
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363828?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363737; 11139-040414_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 17
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363737?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363697; 11139-040414_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 28
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363697?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 46 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363549; 11139-040414_0046
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 46
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363549?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363187; 11139-040414_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 20
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363187?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36363022; 11139-040414_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 16
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363022?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36362905; 11139-040414_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362905?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36362140; 11139-040414_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 22
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362140?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SALMON+CREEK+PROJECT%2C+OKANOGAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36357511; 11139-040414_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 23
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357511?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2014-08-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1312&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Animal.&rft.issn=1751732X&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 50]
T2  - SALMON CREEK PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36357351; 11139-040414_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The restoration of sufficient water flows to Salmon Creek and rehabilitate the streambed in Okanogan County, Washington is proposed to provide for adequate passage for summer steelhead trout and possibly spring chinook salmon. Both steelhead and spring chinook are known to have occurred in Salmon Creek in the past. However, habitat for these species in Salmon Creek was greatly affected in the early 1900s by the construction of the Conconully Dam in the upper reaches of the creek in 1910 and the Okanogan Irrigation District (OID) diversion dam on the lower reaches of the creek in 1916. Since these facilities were constructed, the lower 4.3-mile section of the creek, downstream of the OID diversion dam, has been, and continues to be, typically dewatered under normal irrigation operations, except during high runoff years that resulted in uncontrolled spill at the reservoir and diversion dam. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a new pump station on the Okanogan River and use Okanogan River water for irrigation in place of Salmon Creek water. The gravel barrier at the mouth of Salmon Creek would be removed to aid fish passage. Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing Shellrock pump station to increase use of Okanogan River water for irrigation and, additionally, rehabilitate the stream channel in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to improve fish passage. Alternative 3 would involve the purchase of water rights from irrigators and placement of the water in trust through the state of Washington the water to remain in Salmon Creek. All three action alternatives would also upgrade the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal to increase water flow capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increased summer flows, streambed improvements, and/or removal of streambed obstructions would improve the potential for passage of steelhead trout and chinook salmon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of water rights from the OID would prevent its 617 members from obtaining irrigation water from Salmon Creek, possibly eliminating their ability to continue farming on much of their agricultural land. Among others, the OID provides water to Native Americans belonging to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-501).
JF  - EPA number: 040414, 741 pages and maps, August 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 25
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0346
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Salmon Creek
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357351?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Animal.&rft.atitle=Management+factors+affecting+mortality%2C+feed+intake+and+feed+conversion+ratio+of+grow-finishing+pigs&rft.au=Agostini%2C+P+S%3BFahey%2C+A+G%3BManzanilla%2C+E+G%3BO%E2%80%99Doherty%2C+J.+V.%3Bde+Blas%2C+C.%3BGasa%2C+J&rft.aulast=Agostini&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2014-08-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1312&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Animal.&rft.issn=1751732X&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 248 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874831; 11136-1_0248
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 248
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874831?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 247 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874830; 11136-1_0247
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 247
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874830?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 245 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874828; 11136-1_0245
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 245
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874828?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 244 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874827; 11136-1_0244
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 244
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874827?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 243 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874826; 11136-1_0243
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 243
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874826?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 242 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874825; 11136-1_0242
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 242
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874825?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 241 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874824; 11136-1_0241
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 241
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874824?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 240 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874823; 11136-1_0240
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 240
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874823?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 239 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874822; 11136-1_0239
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 239
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874822?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 238 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874821; 11136-1_0238
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 238
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874821?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 237 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874820; 11136-1_0237
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 237
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874820?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 176 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874818; 11136-1_0176
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 176
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874818?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 168 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874817; 11136-1_0168
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 168
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874817?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 236 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874815; 11136-1_0236
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 236
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874815?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 166 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874814; 11136-1_0166
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 166
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874814?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 234 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874811; 11136-1_0234
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 234
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874811?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 164 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874810; 11136-1_0164
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 164
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874810?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 233 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874809; 11136-1_0233
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 233
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874809?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 163 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874808; 11136-1_0163
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 163
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874808?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 232 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874807; 11136-1_0232
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 232
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874807?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 162 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874806; 11136-1_0162
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 162
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874806?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 231 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874805; 11136-1_0231
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 231
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874805?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 161 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874804; 11136-1_0161
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 161
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874804?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 230 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874803; 11136-1_0230
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 230
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874803?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 160 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874802; 11136-1_0160
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 160
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 229 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874801; 11136-1_0229
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 229
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874801?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 228 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874799; 11136-1_0228
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 228
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874799?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 158 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874798; 11136-1_0158
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 158
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874798?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 227 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874797; 11136-1_0227
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 227
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874797?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 226 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874796; 11136-1_0226
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 226
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874796?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 157 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874795; 11136-1_0157
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 157
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874795?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 225 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874792; 11136-1_0225
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 225
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874792?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 118 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874791; 11136-1_0118
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 118
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874791?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 155 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874789; 11136-1_0155
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 155
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874789?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 153 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874786; 11136-1_0153
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 153
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874786?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 114 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874785; 11136-1_0114
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 114
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874785?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 77 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874784; 11136-1_0077
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 77
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874784?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 152 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874783; 11136-1_0152
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 152
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874783?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 76 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874782; 11136-1_0076
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 76
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874782?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 113 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874781; 11136-1_0113
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 113
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874781?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 151 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874780; 11136-1_0151
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 151
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874780?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 75 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874779; 11136-1_0075
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 75
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874779?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 150 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874778; 11136-1_0150
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 150
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874778?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 111 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874777; 11136-1_0111
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 111
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874777?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 74 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874775; 11136-1_0074
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 74
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874775?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 149 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874774; 11136-1_0149
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 149
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874774?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 110 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874772; 11136-1_0110
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 110
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874772?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 124 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874771; 11136-1_0124
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 124
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874771?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 72 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874767; 11136-1_0072
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 72
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874767?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 121 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874766; 11136-1_0121
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 121
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874766?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 120 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874762; 11136-1_0120
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 120
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874762?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 145 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874754; 11136-1_0145
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 145
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874754?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 70 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874752; 11136-1_0070
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 70
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874752?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 62 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874748; 11136-1_0062
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 62
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874748?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 69 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874746; 11136-1_0069
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 69
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874746?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 61 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874742; 11136-1_0061
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 61
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874742?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 68 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874741; 11136-1_0068
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 68
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874741?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 60 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874737; 11136-1_0060
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 60
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874737?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 116 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874736; 11136-1_0116
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 116
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874736?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 67 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874735; 11136-1_0067
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 67
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874735?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874734; 11136-1_0059
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 59
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874734?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 66 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874733; 11136-1_0066
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 66
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874733?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 198 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874732; 11136-1_0198
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 198
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874732?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 115 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874731; 11136-1_0115
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 115
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874731?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 199 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874730; 11136-1_0199
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 199
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874730?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 58 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874729; 11136-1_0058
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 58
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874729?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 65 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874728; 11136-1_0065
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 65
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874728?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 195 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874727; 11136-1_0195
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 195
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874727?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 215 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874726; 11136-1_0215
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 215
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874726?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874725; 11136-1_0057
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 57
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874725?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 64 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874723; 11136-1_0064
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 64
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874723?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 126 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874722; 11136-1_0126
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 126
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874722?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 210 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874721; 11136-1_0210
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 210
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874721?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874720; 11136-1_0056
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 56
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874720?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 109 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874719; 11136-1_0109
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 109
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874719?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 63 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874718; 11136-1_0063
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 63
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874718?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 203 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874717; 11136-1_0203
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 203
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874717?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 107 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874716; 11136-1_0107
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 107
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874716?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 55 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874715; 11136-1_0055
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 55
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874715?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 108 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874714; 11136-1_0108
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 108
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874714?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874713; 11136-1_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 24
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874713?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 202 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874712; 11136-1_0202
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 202
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874712?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 106 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874711; 11136-1_0106
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 106
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874711?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874708; 11136-1_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874708?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874705; 11136-1_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 20
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874705?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 103 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874704; 11136-1_0103
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 103
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874704?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874702; 11136-1_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 13
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874702?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874698; 11136-1_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 19
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874698?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874694; 11136-1_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874694?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 132 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874692; 11136-1_0132
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 132
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874692?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874691; 11136-1_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 18
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874691?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874688; 11136-1_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874688?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 128 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874687; 11136-1_0128
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 128
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874687?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 197 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874686; 11136-1_0197
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 197
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874686?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874684; 11136-1_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 17
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874684?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 39 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874682; 11136-1_0039
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 39
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874682?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874681; 11136-1_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 10
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874681?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 196 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874680; 11136-1_0196
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 196
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874680?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874679; 11136-1_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 16
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874679?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 123 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874676; 11136-1_0123
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 123
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874676?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874675; 11136-1_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874675?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 105 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874674; 11136-1_0105
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 105
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874674?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874672; 11136-1_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 32
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874672?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 122 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874670; 11136-1_0122
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 122
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874670?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 104 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874667; 11136-1_0104
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 104
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874667?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874664; 11136-1_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 31
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874664?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874653; 11136-1_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 30
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874653?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874645; 11136-1_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 28
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874645?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874640; 11136-1_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 27
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874640?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874636; 11136-1_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874633; 11136-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874633?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 219 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874587; 11136-1_0219
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 219
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874587?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 218 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874583; 11136-1_0218
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 218
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874583?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 211 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874576; 11136-1_0211
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 211
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874576?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 207 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874571; 11136-1_0207
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 207
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874571?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 255 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874568; 11136-1_0255
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 255
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874568?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 254 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874559; 11136-1_0254
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 254
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874559?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 139 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874556; 11136-1_0139
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 139
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874556?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 182 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874553; 11136-1_0182
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 182
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874553?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 253 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874548; 11136-1_0253
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 253
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874548?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 250 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874546; 11136-1_0250
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 250
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874546?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 133 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874545; 11136-1_0133
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 133
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874545?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 91 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874543; 11136-1_0091
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 91
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874543?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 252 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874538; 11136-1_0252
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 252
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874538?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 194 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874537; 11136-1_0194
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 194
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874537?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 190 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874534; 11136-1_0190
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 190
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874534?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 87 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874530; 11136-1_0087
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 87
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874530?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 193 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874527; 11136-1_0193
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 193
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874527?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 184 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874526; 11136-1_0184
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 184
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874526?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 49 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874525; 11136-1_0049
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 49
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874525?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 186 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874521; 11136-1_0186
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 186
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874521?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 86 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874519; 11136-1_0086
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 86
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874519?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 183 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874516; 11136-1_0183
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 183
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874516?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 192 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874513; 11136-1_0192
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 192
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874513?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 48 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874512; 11136-1_0048
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 48
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874512?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 185 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874510; 11136-1_0185
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 185
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874510?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874508; 11136-1_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 25
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874508?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 171 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874506; 11136-1_0171
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 171
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874506?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 175 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874502; 11136-1_0175
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 175
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874502?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 191 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874500; 11136-1_0191
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 191
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874500?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 95 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874498; 11136-1_0095
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 95
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874498?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 188 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874497; 11136-1_0188
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 188
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874497?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 47 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874496; 11136-1_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 47
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874496?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 98 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874490; 11136-1_0098
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 98
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874490?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 174 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874486; 11136-1_0174
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 174
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874486?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 41 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874479; 11136-1_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 41
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874479?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 94 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874478; 11136-1_0094
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 94
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874478?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 93 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874474; 11136-1_0093
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 93
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874474?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 173 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874467; 11136-1_0173
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 173
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874467?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 40 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874464; 11136-1_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 40
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874464?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 96 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874462; 11136-1_0096
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 96
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874462?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 80 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874455; 11136-1_0080
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 80
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874455?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 92 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874450; 11136-1_0092
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 92
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874450?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874448; 11136-1_0036
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 36
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874448?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874438; 11136-1_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 22
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874438?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 84 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874435; 11136-1_0084
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 84
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874435?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874433; 11136-1_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 35
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874433?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 99 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874426; 11136-1_0099
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 99
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874426?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 83 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874420; 11136-1_0083
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 83
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874420?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874417; 11136-1_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 221 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874413; 11136-1_0221
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 221
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874413?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 82 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874405; 11136-1_0082
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 82
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874405?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874402; 11136-1_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 179 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874399; 11136-1_0179
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 179
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874399?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 220 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874397; 11136-1_0220
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 220
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874397?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 81 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874394; 11136-1_0081
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 81
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874394?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874391; 11136-1_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874391?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 178 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874386; 11136-1_0178
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 178
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874386?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 189 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874385; 11136-1_0189
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 189
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874385?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874381; 11136-1_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 23
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874381?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 97 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874372; 11136-1_0097
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 97
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874372?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 89 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874371; 11136-1_0089
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 89
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874371?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 88 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874360; 11136-1_0088
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 88
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874360?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874359; 11136-1_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 29
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874359?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 249 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874353; 11136-1_0249
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 249
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874353?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 169 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874313; 11136-1_0169
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 169
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874313?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 79 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874296; 11136-1_0079
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 79
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874296?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 181 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874293; 11136-1_0181
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 181
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874293?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 78 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874282; 11136-1_0078
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 78
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874282?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 180 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874273; 11136-1_0180
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 180
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874273?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 90 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874258; 11136-1_0090
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 90
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874258?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874257; 11136-1_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 21
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 26 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874228; 11136-1_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 26
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874228?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 217 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874199; 11136-1_0217
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 217
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874199?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 216 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874184; 11136-1_0216
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 216
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874184?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 214 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874171; 11136-1_0214
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 214
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874171?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 213 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874159; 11136-1_0213
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 213
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874159?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 222 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874135; 11136-1_0222
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 222
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874135?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 137 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874122; 11136-1_0137
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 137
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874122?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 206 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874117; 11136-1_0206
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 206
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874117?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 135 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874102; 11136-1_0135
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 135
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874102?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 205 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874101; 11136-1_0205
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 205
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874101?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 142 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874084; 11136-1_0142
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 142
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874084?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 223 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874071; 11136-1_0223
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 223
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874071?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 141 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874069; 11136-1_0141
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 141
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874069?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874064; 11136-1_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 43
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874064?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874048; 11136-1_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874048?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 144 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874034; 11136-1_0144
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 144
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874034?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 51 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874025; 11136-1_0051
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 51
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874025?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 143 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874024; 11136-1_0143
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 143
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874024?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 34 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874016; 11136-1_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 34
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874016?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 134 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874013; 11136-1_0134
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 134
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874013?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 33 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874006; 11136-1_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 33
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874006?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905874002; 11136-1_0054
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 54
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874002?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873989; 11136-1_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873989?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873988; 11136-1_0053
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 53
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873988?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873929; 11136-1_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873929?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 209 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873795; 11136-1_0209
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 209
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873795?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 208 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873755; 11136-1_0208
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 208
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873755?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 131 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873706; 11136-1_0131
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 131
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873706?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 136 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873690; 11136-1_0136
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 136
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873690?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 37 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873669; 11136-1_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 37
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873669?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 45 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873659; 11136-1_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 45
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873659?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 44 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873617; 11136-1_0044
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 44
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873617?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 129 of 255]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 905873343; 11136-1_0129
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 129
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873343?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 36417943; 11136
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36417943?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PETRIFIED FOREST NATIONAL PARK, NAVAJO AND APACHE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - PETRIFIED FOREST NATIONAL PARK, NAVAJO AND APACHE COUNTIES, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36371448; 11132-040407_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petrified Forest National Park in Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona is proposed. The 93,533-acre park is located 100 miles east of Flagstaff. The park features one of the largest and most colorful concentrations of petrified wood in the world. Present day exposures of the 225-million-year-old Chinle Formation extend through the Painted Desert. Fossils preserved in this formation represent an entire ecosystem. These rare, accessible associations of animal and plant fossils make it possible to learn more about the Late Triassic period at the park than anywhere else in the world. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to use of Painted Desert Inn National Historical Landmark, staff housing needs, cultural landscape values, use and treatment of the Painted Desert headquarters complex, museum collections, accommodation of researchers, concessions, and resource protection, and visitor experience/interpretation in different areas of the park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the present management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize reusing and maintaining the historic integrity of the Painted Desert headquarters complex. Visitor services at Painted Desert Inn, which would be rehabilitated, would be expanded. Facility improvements would be made at Rainbow Forest. Park lands would be managed in a manner similar to the current regime, but greater emphasis would be placed on protection of natural and cultural resources via increased monitoring and adapting to new information. Some trails and turnouts would be added, and visitor hours would be expanded in the north. Most park collections would be housed in a new facility at the headquarters complex. The plan would remain in effect for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experience, provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions about important issues with respect to protection and interpretation of park resources, and ensure that the foundation for decision-making was coordinated with interested stakeholders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the trail system would result in increased potential for trampling of archaeological sites, disturbance of resources, vandalism, and theft. Parking facilities, walkway realignments, and trail development would affect the cultural landscape. Elimination of petrified wood sales within the park would reduce the income of concessioners. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535) Public Law 91-504. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0308D, Volume 27, Number 3. For the abstract of a previous draft and final EIS concerning the current management plan, see 91-0387D, Volume 15, Number 6 and 93-0013F, Volume 17, Number 1, respectively
JF  - EPA number: 040407, 328 pages, August 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-27
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Housing
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Parking
KW  - Research
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Petrified Forest National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 91-504, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371448?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETRIFIED+FOREST+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NAVAJO+AND+APACHE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=PETRIFIED+FOREST+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NAVAJO+AND+APACHE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petrified Forest, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PETRIFIED FOREST NATIONAL PARK, NAVAJO AND APACHE COUNTIES, ARIZONA.
AN  - 16367814; 11132
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petrified Forest National Park in Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona is proposed. The 93,533-acre park is located 100 miles east of Flagstaff. The park features one of the largest and most colorful concentrations of petrified wood in the world. Present day exposures of the 225-million-year-old Chinle Formation extend through the Painted Desert. Fossils preserved in this formation represent an entire ecosystem. These rare, accessible associations of animal and plant fossils make it possible to learn more about the Late Triassic period at the park than anywhere else in the world. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to use of Painted Desert Inn National Historical Landmark, staff housing needs, cultural landscape values, use and treatment of the Painted Desert headquarters complex, museum collections, accommodation of researchers, concessions, and resource protection, and visitor experience/interpretation in different areas of the park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the present management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize reusing and maintaining the historic integrity of the Painted Desert headquarters complex. Visitor services at Painted Desert Inn, which would be rehabilitated, would be expanded. Facility improvements would be made at Rainbow Forest. Park lands would be managed in a manner similar to the current regime, but greater emphasis would be placed on protection of natural and cultural resources via increased monitoring and adapting to new information. Some trails and turnouts would be added, and visitor hours would be expanded in the north. Most park collections would be housed in a new facility at the headquarters complex. The plan would remain in effect for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experience, provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions about important issues with respect to protection and interpretation of park resources, and ensure that the foundation for decision-making was coordinated with interested stakeholders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the trail system would result in increased potential for trampling of archaeological sites, disturbance of resources, vandalism, and theft. Parking facilities, walkway realignments, and trail development would affect the cultural landscape. Elimination of petrified wood sales within the park would reduce the income of concessioners. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535) Public Law 91-504. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0308D, Volume 27, Number 3. For the abstract of a previous draft and final EIS concerning the current management plan, see 91-0387D, Volume 15, Number 6 and 93-0013F, Volume 17, Number 1, respectively
JF  - EPA number: 040407, 328 pages, August 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-27
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Housing
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Parking
KW  - Research
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Petrified Forest National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 91-504, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367814?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETRIFIED+FOREST+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NAVAJO+AND+APACHE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=PETRIFIED+FOREST+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NAVAJO+AND+APACHE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petrified Forest, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA (REVISION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1998).
AN  - 36444666; 11127
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (Cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this revised EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1988. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance stream flows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040402, 851 pages and maps, August 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-8
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36444666?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28REVISION+OF+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1998%29.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28REVISION+OF+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1998%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA (REVISION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1998). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA (REVISION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1998).
AN  - 36372258; 11127-040402_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (Cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this revised EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1988. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance stream flows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040402, 851 pages and maps, August 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-8
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372258?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28REVISION+OF+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1998%29.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28REVISION+OF+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1998%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995).
AN  - 36374135; 11114-040389_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four No-Build Alternatives. Alternatives B-1, B, or D would provide a new four-lane bridge, with a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the north side of the bridge; the bridge would be located approximately 6,500 south of the Lift Bridge, 3,900 feet south of the bridge, or 1,940 feet south of the bridge, respectively. Alternative E would provide a new one-way bridge approximately 2,010 feet south of the Lift Bridge for two lanes of eastbound traffic, and use the Lift Bridge as a two-lane, one-way roadway for westbound traffic. The cost of alternatives B-1, C, D, and E are estimated to range from $230 million to $355 million, $230 million to $285 million, $245 million to $310 million, and $230 million to $275 million. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 6.0, 7.4, 7.3, and 3.1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development, encompassing 285 to 305 acres, would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National Riverway System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of 20 to 27 commercial properties, eight to 22 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, 66 to 129 acres of farmland, 6.4 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.18 to 13.29 acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal and/or standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter 33 to 35 potentially contaminated sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2 and 95-0139F, Volume 19, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040389, 591 pages and maps, August 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-DS
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - St. Croix River
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374135?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US HIGHWAY 89, BROWNING TO HUDSON BAY DIVIDE, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 16367888; 11115
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 25.5-mile segment of US 89 from its junction with US 2 to the Hudson Bay Divide south of Saint Mary in Glacier County, Montana is proposed. The US Browning to Hudson Bay Divide project initially considered improvement of a network of roadways that perform some of the transportation functions that might otherwise be performed by US 89 if it met current roadway standards. State and federal authorities concluded that the most pressing need for roadway improvements within this roadway network exists in the transportation corridor between the Saint Mary Babb area, including points north of Babb and west of Saint Mary, and the Browning area, including points south and east of Browning. US 89 and Duck Lake Road function as the primary transportation links between these two areas. Hence, the project has focused on potential improvements to US 89 between Hudson Bay Divide and Browning as well as improvements to Duck Lake Road between US 89 south of Babb and Browning. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) and two widening alternatives, are considered in the draft EIS. Alternative B would provide for a 32-foot cross-section, while alternative C would provide for a cross-section of 36 feet. The EIS also analyses a Duck Lake Road Option, which would consist of improvements in three areas along Duck Lake Road as an alternate truck route for US 89; this option could be implemented under any alternative. Alternative C, with the Duck Lake Road Option, has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a facility that meets current design standards, enhancing safety and highway operations within the corridor. The highway would particularly enhance the cultural resources and economic opportunities of the Blackfeet Nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 146 acres of wildlife habitat and increase fragmentation of forested habitat in the area and require the relocation of one residence and the acquisition of two areas of unimproved lands encompassing 472 acres. Extensive earthwork would be required along the corridor. The project would displace 19.8 acres of wetlands. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of South Fork Cut Bank Creek would be relocated. Bald eagle, grizzly bear, and bull trout, all of which are federally protected species, could be affected somewhat. Two historic bridges and the Blackfeet Highway, also an historically significant resource, would be affected, and several archaeologically significant cloth-offering sites would be disturbed. Highway structures would diminish the visual quality of the rural area. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040390, 377 pages, August 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367888?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - ]Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995).
AN  - 16354053; 11114
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four No-Build Alternatives. Alternatives B-1, B, or D would provide a new four-lane bridge, with a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the north side of the bridge; the bridge would be located approximately 6,500 south of the Lift Bridge, 3,900 feet south of the bridge, or 1,940 feet south of the bridge, respectively. Alternative E would provide a new one-way bridge approximately 2,010 feet south of the Lift Bridge for two lanes of eastbound traffic, and use the Lift Bridge as a two-lane, one-way roadway for westbound traffic. The cost of alternatives B-1, C, D, and E are estimated to range from $230 million to $355 million, $230 million to $285 million, $245 million to $310 million, and $230 million to $275 million. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 6.0, 7.4, 7.3, and 3.1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development, encompassing 285 to 305 acres, would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National Riverway System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of 20 to 27 commercial properties, eight to 22 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, 66 to 129 acres of farmland, 6.4 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.18 to 13.29 acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal and/or standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter 33 to 35 potentially contaminated sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2 and 95-0139F, Volume 19, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040389, 591 pages and maps, August 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-DS
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - St. Croix River
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354053?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36435268; 11101
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general resource management plan for the Andrews Management Unit (AMU) and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. A management plan is in preparation for the CMPA and the surrounding AMU, collectively known as the Planning Area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the management of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area; management of designated special areas; management of riparian and wetland areas; management of upland habitats; management of recreation in the Planning Area; management of transportation in the CMPA; and support for local tribes and communities. This final EIS for the AMU/CMPA considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, for managing approximately 1.65 million acres of public lands, 1.22 million acres of which lie within the AMU and 428,156 of which lie within the CMPA. Each alternative is a complete land use plan that provides a framework for multiple=use management of the full spectrum of resources present in the Planning Area Management goals and objectives are constant across all alternatives. Each alternative, excepting Alternative B, would meet the management goals of the various resources; however, the means for meeting each goal, the rate at which the goals would be reached, and the impacts to resources differ across the alternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide balance of a high level of natural resource protection and improvement of ecological conditions against the need for commodity production. Specific management actions would address air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, vegetation, woodlands, the wild-land and juniper management area, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, the redband trout reserve, cultural resources, traditional Native American practices, visual resources, socioeconomic values, energy and mineral resources, livestock grazing, lands and realty, roads and other transportation system components, recreation resources, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, riparian and woodland vegetation, wildland juniper stands, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, paleontological resources, cultural resources, traditional practices of Native Americans, visual aesthetics, socioeconomics, energy and mineral development, wild horses and burros, grazing allotment permittees, wild-land fire management, land tenure, transportation systems, off-highway vehicle use, recreational resources, ACECs, and wilderness and wild and scenic river corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to the resources indicated in the "Positive Impacts" section. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-99). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0089D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040375, Volume 1--531 pages, Volume 2--511 pages and maps, Volume 3--96 pages, August 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/043+1792
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435268?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36374581; 11101-040375_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general resource management plan for the Andrews Management Unit (AMU) and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. A management plan is in preparation for the CMPA and the surrounding AMU, collectively known as the Planning Area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the management of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area; management of designated special areas; management of riparian and wetland areas; management of upland habitats; management of recreation in the Planning Area; management of transportation in the CMPA; and support for local tribes and communities. This final EIS for the AMU/CMPA considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, for managing approximately 1.65 million acres of public lands, 1.22 million acres of which lie within the AMU and 428,156 of which lie within the CMPA. Each alternative is a complete land use plan that provides a framework for multiple=use management of the full spectrum of resources present in the Planning Area Management goals and objectives are constant across all alternatives. Each alternative, excepting Alternative B, would meet the management goals of the various resources; however, the means for meeting each goal, the rate at which the goals would be reached, and the impacts to resources differ across the alternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide balance of a high level of natural resource protection and improvement of ecological conditions against the need for commodity production. Specific management actions would address air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, vegetation, woodlands, the wild-land and juniper management area, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, the redband trout reserve, cultural resources, traditional Native American practices, visual resources, socioeconomic values, energy and mineral resources, livestock grazing, lands and realty, roads and other transportation system components, recreation resources, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, riparian and woodland vegetation, wildland juniper stands, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, paleontological resources, cultural resources, traditional practices of Native Americans, visual aesthetics, socioeconomics, energy and mineral development, wild horses and burros, grazing allotment permittees, wild-land fire management, land tenure, transportation systems, off-highway vehicle use, recreational resources, ACECs, and wilderness and wild and scenic river corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to the resources indicated in the "Positive Impacts" section. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-99). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0089D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040375, Volume 1--531 pages, Volume 2--511 pages and maps, Volume 3--96 pages, August 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/043+1792
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374581?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36361653; 11101-040375_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general resource management plan for the Andrews Management Unit (AMU) and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. A management plan is in preparation for the CMPA and the surrounding AMU, collectively known as the Planning Area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the management of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area; management of designated special areas; management of riparian and wetland areas; management of upland habitats; management of recreation in the Planning Area; management of transportation in the CMPA; and support for local tribes and communities. This final EIS for the AMU/CMPA considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, for managing approximately 1.65 million acres of public lands, 1.22 million acres of which lie within the AMU and 428,156 of which lie within the CMPA. Each alternative is a complete land use plan that provides a framework for multiple=use management of the full spectrum of resources present in the Planning Area Management goals and objectives are constant across all alternatives. Each alternative, excepting Alternative B, would meet the management goals of the various resources; however, the means for meeting each goal, the rate at which the goals would be reached, and the impacts to resources differ across the alternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide balance of a high level of natural resource protection and improvement of ecological conditions against the need for commodity production. Specific management actions would address air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, vegetation, woodlands, the wild-land and juniper management area, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, the redband trout reserve, cultural resources, traditional Native American practices, visual resources, socioeconomic values, energy and mineral resources, livestock grazing, lands and realty, roads and other transportation system components, recreation resources, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, riparian and woodland vegetation, wildland juniper stands, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, paleontological resources, cultural resources, traditional practices of Native Americans, visual aesthetics, socioeconomics, energy and mineral development, wild horses and burros, grazing allotment permittees, wild-land fire management, land tenure, transportation systems, off-highway vehicle use, recreational resources, ACECs, and wilderness and wild and scenic river corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to the resources indicated in the "Positive Impacts" section. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-99). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0089D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040375, Volume 1--531 pages, Volume 2--511 pages and maps, Volume 3--96 pages, August 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/043+1792
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361653?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36360977; 11101-040375_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general resource management plan for the Andrews Management Unit (AMU) and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. A management plan is in preparation for the CMPA and the surrounding AMU, collectively known as the Planning Area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the management of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area; management of designated special areas; management of riparian and wetland areas; management of upland habitats; management of recreation in the Planning Area; management of transportation in the CMPA; and support for local tribes and communities. This final EIS for the AMU/CMPA considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, for managing approximately 1.65 million acres of public lands, 1.22 million acres of which lie within the AMU and 428,156 of which lie within the CMPA. Each alternative is a complete land use plan that provides a framework for multiple=use management of the full spectrum of resources present in the Planning Area Management goals and objectives are constant across all alternatives. Each alternative, excepting Alternative B, would meet the management goals of the various resources; however, the means for meeting each goal, the rate at which the goals would be reached, and the impacts to resources differ across the alternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide balance of a high level of natural resource protection and improvement of ecological conditions against the need for commodity production. Specific management actions would address air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, vegetation, woodlands, the wild-land and juniper management area, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, the redband trout reserve, cultural resources, traditional Native American practices, visual resources, socioeconomic values, energy and mineral resources, livestock grazing, lands and realty, roads and other transportation system components, recreation resources, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to air quality, water resources, soils and biological soil crusts, riparian and woodland vegetation, wildland juniper stands, rangelands, noxious weeds, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, paleontological resources, cultural resources, traditional practices of Native Americans, visual aesthetics, socioeconomics, energy and mineral development, wild horses and burros, grazing allotment permittees, wild-land fire management, land tenure, transportation systems, off-highway vehicle use, recreational resources, ACECs, and wilderness and wild and scenic river corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any alternative would result in beneficial and/or negative impacts to the resources indicated in the "Positive Impacts" section. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-99). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0089D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040375, Volume 1--531 pages, Volume 2--511 pages and maps, Volume 3--96 pages, August 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/043+1792
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360977?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=ANDREWS+MANAGEMENT+UNIT%2FSTEENS+MOUNTAIN+COOPERATIVE+MANAGEMENT+AND+PROTECTION+AREA%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, BREWSTER COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, BREWSTER COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 36371157; 11096-040370_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for Big Bend National Park in Brewster County, Texas is proposed. Established in 1935, the 801,000-acre park lies in southwestern Texas along Rio Grande where it forms the Mexico/US international boundary and park officials administer boundary controls. The park includes the largest protected area of Chihuahuan Desert topography and ecosystems in the country and, along with the contiguous areas in Mexico the largest in North America. Archaeologists have discovered artifacts that are estimated to be 9,000 years old, and historic buildings and landscapes illustrate live along the international border at the turn of the 20th century. The park has been and continues to be used for a variety of subsistence and commercial uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in some developed areas, floodplains, threatened and endangered species, and degradation of natural systems. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would upgrade some facilities and provide for the construction of a new visitor center at Panther Junction to provide room for interpretive media, allowing adequate interpretation of key aspects of the park's history and to help visitors plan their stays. The space in the headquarters building vacated by the visitor center function would be redesigned for staff offices. A storage warehouse, bunkhouse, and employee residence would also be provided at Panther Junction. The natural resources and collection and management building would adequately provide for the collection storage needs for the duration of the plan. If additional collection storage space became necessary, the other new storage areas would be evaluated to accommodate this need. One employee residence, one employee bunkhouse, and one 12-room visitor lodging unit would be removed from the Chisos Basin to reduce human water consumption in that area. At Rio Grande Village, the recreational vehicle campground would be enlarged by approximately 40 percent to provide no more than 30 total sites. Cottonwood campsites would be relocated away from bank cave-in areas, and a new egress road would be constructed. Fifteen percent of the park personnel and function would be moved to gateway communities where offices and residences would be constructed or leased. Alternative C would remove all facilities from the Chisos Basin and Rio Grande Village, excepting the main road, a trailhead with parking, and a restroom. Under any alternative, the 533,900-acre area within the park that has been proposed for inclusion in the National Wilderness System, as well as 25,700 additional acres that could be added to that area, would be managed as wilderness. The park would also include a segment of the Rio Grande that has been designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Construction, rehabilitation, and restoration costs for the preferred alternative are estimated to range between $18.3 million and $25.0 million. Annual staffing costs estimates range from $5.7 million to $6.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would create a more sustainable park and provide better protection for the park's natural and cultural resources than the recurrent management regime, while offering enhanced experiences for visitors to the park. The new plan would provide employment for 31 additional full-time-equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B would result in the disturbance of soils and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat on 10 acres within the park and 2.5 acres outside the park. Although severe flooding has been infrequent and risks are only minor to moderate, flooding at Rio Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, or Panther Junction could result in major impacts for the visitors and/or employees involved and flooding at Panther Junction could affect the collection of artifacts at that location. Water conservation measures could result in changing the vegetation cover at Mission 66, a site that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places Alternative C, which has not been chosen as the preferred alternative, would provide better protection for the park's natural resources than either of the other two alternatives while providing for appropriate levels of visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S>C. 1271 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0441D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040370, 347 pages, August 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Big Bend National Park
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371157?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+BEND+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+BREWSTER+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+BEND+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+BREWSTER+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Big Bend national Park, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, BREWSTER COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 16356866; 11096
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for Big Bend National Park in Brewster County, Texas is proposed. Established in 1935, the 801,000-acre park lies in southwestern Texas along Rio Grande where it forms the Mexico/US international boundary and park officials administer boundary controls. The park includes the largest protected area of Chihuahuan Desert topography and ecosystems in the country and, along with the contiguous areas in Mexico the largest in North America. Archaeologists have discovered artifacts that are estimated to be 9,000 years old, and historic buildings and landscapes illustrate live along the international border at the turn of the 20th century. The park has been and continues to be used for a variety of subsistence and commercial uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in some developed areas, floodplains, threatened and endangered species, and degradation of natural systems. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would upgrade some facilities and provide for the construction of a new visitor center at Panther Junction to provide room for interpretive media, allowing adequate interpretation of key aspects of the park's history and to help visitors plan their stays. The space in the headquarters building vacated by the visitor center function would be redesigned for staff offices. A storage warehouse, bunkhouse, and employee residence would also be provided at Panther Junction. The natural resources and collection and management building would adequately provide for the collection storage needs for the duration of the plan. If additional collection storage space became necessary, the other new storage areas would be evaluated to accommodate this need. One employee residence, one employee bunkhouse, and one 12-room visitor lodging unit would be removed from the Chisos Basin to reduce human water consumption in that area. At Rio Grande Village, the recreational vehicle campground would be enlarged by approximately 40 percent to provide no more than 30 total sites. Cottonwood campsites would be relocated away from bank cave-in areas, and a new egress road would be constructed. Fifteen percent of the park personnel and function would be moved to gateway communities where offices and residences would be constructed or leased. Alternative C would remove all facilities from the Chisos Basin and Rio Grande Village, excepting the main road, a trailhead with parking, and a restroom. Under any alternative, the 533,900-acre area within the park that has been proposed for inclusion in the National Wilderness System, as well as 25,700 additional acres that could be added to that area, would be managed as wilderness. The park would also include a segment of the Rio Grande that has been designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Construction, rehabilitation, and restoration costs for the preferred alternative are estimated to range between $18.3 million and $25.0 million. Annual staffing costs estimates range from $5.7 million to $6.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would create a more sustainable park and provide better protection for the park's natural and cultural resources than the recurrent management regime, while offering enhanced experiences for visitors to the park. The new plan would provide employment for 31 additional full-time-equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B would result in the disturbance of soils and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat on 10 acres within the park and 2.5 acres outside the park. Although severe flooding has been infrequent and risks are only minor to moderate, flooding at Rio Grande Village, Cottonwood Campground, or Panther Junction could result in major impacts for the visitors and/or employees involved and flooding at Panther Junction could affect the collection of artifacts at that location. Water conservation measures could result in changing the vegetation cover at Mission 66, a site that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places Alternative C, which has not been chosen as the preferred alternative, would provide better protection for the park's natural resources than either of the other two alternatives while providing for appropriate levels of visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S>C. 1271 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0441D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040370, 347 pages, August 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Big Bend National Park
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16356866?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+BEND+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+BREWSTER+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+BEND+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+BREWSTER+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Big Bend national Park, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SELMA TO MONTGOMERY NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALABAMA.
AN  - 36430328; 11098
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail in Alabama is proposed. The 54-mile trial begins at the Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma and follows the route of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March, which traveled through Lowndes County along US Highway 80, currently nominated to be an All American Road; sites in Dallas and Montgomery counties would also be involved in the historic preservation/interpretation program. The march culminated at the Alabama state capitol. Historians view the march as one of the last great campaigns, as well as the emotional peak, of the Modern Civil Rights Movement that began in the 1950s. The events associated with the march brought the issue of voting rights to the forefront of the national political agenda and raised the nation's consciousness about African-Americans' struggle for equal rights. Five months after the march, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which established the legal right to vote for all Americans and forever altered the regional and political landscape. The proposed plan would set management objectives fro the trail by providing a blueprint for administration, resource protection, interpretation, and visitor experience, use of the trail, and site development and marking. The plan further defines the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, organizations, and local interests that will serve as partners with the National Park Service to carry out management objectives. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide stories of the march as defined by the events that occurred between March 7 and March 25, 1965, in Dallas, Lowndes, and Montgomery counties, as well as information on the broader efforts of 1965 and earlier and subsequently to gain voting rights by African-Americans. US 80 would be redesigned to accommodate additional lanes and new safety features, while preserving the roadway's original lanes for local access only. An inventory of the significant, historically intact landscapes along the corridor would be developed and funding would be sought for acquisition and preservation of these resources. Trail partners would further enhance preservation of the route's historic setting by determining priorities for the protection of trail view-sheds with scenic and historic integrity. Three interpretive centers would be established, two of which would be situated in existing buildings. Personnel costs for the interpretive centers are estimated at $1.8 million per year. Approximately $200,000 is expected to be allocated to meet technical assistance, and the National Park Service would provide an additional $125,000 annually to cover operational costs of the St. Jude site in Montgomery County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would commemorate, interpret, and preserve resources associated with the march, improving visitor understanding of the significance of the march and ensuring its continued significance in the American consciousness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Addition of parallel lanes to US 80 in Lowndes County and construction of an interpretive center at the Tent City site in Lowndes County would alter the view-shed from the original route. Increased vehicular traffic along an improved US 80 could also conflict with pedestrian and bicycle use along the trail. LEGAL MANDATES: National Trail System Act of 1968, as amended (P.L. 90-325) and Public Law 101-321.
JF  - EPA number: 040372, 167 pages, August, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-39
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail
KW  - National Trail System Act of 1968, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 101-321, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36430328?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELMA+TO+MONTGOMERY+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=SELMA+TO+MONTGOMERY+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SELMA TO MONTGOMERY NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SELMA TO MONTGOMERY NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALABAMA.
AN  - 36370907; 11098-040372_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail in Alabama is proposed. The 54-mile trial begins at the Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma and follows the route of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March, which traveled through Lowndes County along US Highway 80, currently nominated to be an All American Road; sites in Dallas and Montgomery counties would also be involved in the historic preservation/interpretation program. The march culminated at the Alabama state capitol. Historians view the march as one of the last great campaigns, as well as the emotional peak, of the Modern Civil Rights Movement that began in the 1950s. The events associated with the march brought the issue of voting rights to the forefront of the national political agenda and raised the nation's consciousness about African-Americans' struggle for equal rights. Five months after the march, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which established the legal right to vote for all Americans and forever altered the regional and political landscape. The proposed plan would set management objectives fro the trail by providing a blueprint for administration, resource protection, interpretation, and visitor experience, use of the trail, and site development and marking. The plan further defines the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, organizations, and local interests that will serve as partners with the National Park Service to carry out management objectives. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide stories of the march as defined by the events that occurred between March 7 and March 25, 1965, in Dallas, Lowndes, and Montgomery counties, as well as information on the broader efforts of 1965 and earlier and subsequently to gain voting rights by African-Americans. US 80 would be redesigned to accommodate additional lanes and new safety features, while preserving the roadway's original lanes for local access only. An inventory of the significant, historically intact landscapes along the corridor would be developed and funding would be sought for acquisition and preservation of these resources. Trail partners would further enhance preservation of the route's historic setting by determining priorities for the protection of trail view-sheds with scenic and historic integrity. Three interpretive centers would be established, two of which would be situated in existing buildings. Personnel costs for the interpretive centers are estimated at $1.8 million per year. Approximately $200,000 is expected to be allocated to meet technical assistance, and the National Park Service would provide an additional $125,000 annually to cover operational costs of the St. Jude site in Montgomery County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would commemorate, interpret, and preserve resources associated with the march, improving visitor understanding of the significance of the march and ensuring its continued significance in the American consciousness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Addition of parallel lanes to US 80 in Lowndes County and construction of an interpretive center at the Tent City site in Lowndes County would alter the view-shed from the original route. Increased vehicular traffic along an improved US 80 could also conflict with pedestrian and bicycle use along the trail. LEGAL MANDATES: National Trail System Act of 1968, as amended (P.L. 90-325) and Public Law 101-321.
JF  - EPA number: 040372, 167 pages, August, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-39
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail
KW  - National Trail System Act of 1968, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 101-321, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370907?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELMA+TO+MONTGOMERY+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=SELMA+TO+MONTGOMERY+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Hydrographic Survey Data Collected at Three Proposed Pumping Plant Sites on the Williamson River near Chiloquin, Oregon
AN  - 20993096; 7322181
AB  - Introduction: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) recently completed a study to investigate the feasibility of improving fish passage at Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River, Oregon. The study, conducted in collaboration with many stakeholders, evaluated several alternatives, including dam removal. During the study process, Reclamation completed appraisal level investigations on geology, sediment transport, sediment geochemistry, dam stability, engineering, and hydrology. Collaborators, after reviewing these technical investigations, reached consensus to support the dam removal alternative as best accomplishing the objective to improve upstream and downstream fish passage.
JF  - Hydrographic Survey Data Collected at Three Proposed Pumping Plant Sites on the Wiliamson River Near Chiloquin, Oregon. [np]. Aug 2004.
AU  - Vermeyen, T B
Y1  - 2004/08//
PY  - 2004
DA  - August 2004
PB  - U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation USA
KW  - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment chemistry
KW  - Fishways
KW  - Fish Passages
KW  - Hydrographic surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Appraisals
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Evaluation
KW  - Civil Engineering
KW  - USA, Oregon, Williamson R.
KW  - Dam Stability
KW  - Dams
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Downstream
KW  - Sediment transport
KW  - Land Reclamation
KW  - Pumping
KW  - USA, Oregon
KW  - Dam Effects
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20993096?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Vermeyen%2C+T+B&rft.aulast=Vermeyen&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrographic+Survey+Data+Collected+at+Three+Proposed+Pumping+Plant+Sites+on+the+Williamson+River+near+Chiloquin%2C+Oregon&rft.title=Hydrographic+Survey+Data+Collected+at+Three+Proposed+Pumping+Plant+Sites+on+the+Williamson+River+near+Chiloquin%2C+Oregon&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SILVERTON OUTDOOR LEARNING AND RECREATION CENTER, SAN JUAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SILVERTON OUTDOOR LEARNING AND RECREATION CENTER, SAN JUAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, COLORADO.
AN  - 36354556; 10904-040355_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a long-term use authorization to Core Mountain Enterprises, LLC, concerning 1,300 acres of land within the San Juan Resource Management Area of San Juan County, Colorado is proposed to allow the Silverton Outdoor Learning and Research Center (SOLRC) to provide for backcountry skiing, summer recreation, and educational facilities. The project site is located approximately five miles north of Silverton. The SOLRC currently operates at a small scale on private land and, under annual permits, on public lands. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to watershed resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat (particularly Canada lynx, which is a federally protected species), land use, socioeconomics, recreation, safety, transportation, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would provide for a 40-year use authorization, but the terms and other administrative details of the authorization would remain at the discretion of the authorizing agency. The authorization would provide for use of the entire 1,300 acres for skiing in the winter, hiking in the summer, and educational programs year-round; unrestricted skier access to all permit area terrain not closed or otherwise restricted by the SOLRC for snow safety reasons; use of the permit area by up to 475 SOLRC guests per day; construction of up to 17 temporary foot/skier bridges across Cement Creek within the permit areas, six of which would be on public land; a summer and winter mountaineering route following the ridgeline south from the upper terminal of the chairlift eastward across the top of Storm Peak, then northward and westward around the permit area boundary to tie into County Road (CR) 52 near Gladstone; a hiking trail from the ridgeline near the upper lift terminal down to the Colorado Basin, connecting with CR 52; and a small solar-powered radio repeater on public land near the existing radio reflector on 13,053 Peak, which is an unnamed peak northwest of Storm Peak. In addition to the actions authorized under the permits, the applicant would provide the following facilities on private land: a permanent base lodge, 10 yurts or cabins for overnight accommodation, and two rope tows on the ridgeline adjacent to the upper chairlift terminal. The two action alternatives to the proposed action would either authorize guided skiing only on public land and authorize an integrated guided /unguided operation. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for the same permit area, call for the implementation of an integrated stule and backcountry style snow safety approach, allow the same number of SOLRC guests and the proposed action, prohibit helicopter use on public land, and allow selective tree removal on public land. Recreational/educational facilities provided by the permit would include a mountaineering route, hiking trail, foot /skier bridges, a radio repeater, and an alternative skiing/hiking /biking trail from the lift top to the base area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expanding the SOLRC facilities onto a greater area of public land and issuance of a long-term use permit would increase the unique recreational and educational opportunities available to the public at the center, capitalizing on the San Juan Mountain's ruggged beauty, steep and challenging terrain, abundant snowfall, and intact high-elevation ecosystems. The expanded SOLRC would provide direct and indirect employment for local workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Less than 10 acres of public and private lands , and the associated watershed and vegetation resources, would be disturbed by facility developments. The project could affect Canada lynx, but this impact would be unlikely. Winter recreational access to public land would be restricted. The avalanche hazard index would increase slightly, affecting roads and parking areas. Recreational facilities to be provided would mar visual aesthetics in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0433D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040355, 302 pages and maps, July 29, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-20
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Ski Areas
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - San Juan Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354556?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVERTON+OUTDOOR+LEARNING+AND+RECREATION+CENTER%2C+SAN+JUAN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SILVERTON+OUTDOOR+LEARNING+AND+RECREATION+CENTER%2C+SAN+JUAN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SILVERTON OUTDOOR LEARNING AND RECREATION CENTER, SAN JUAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, COLORADO.
AN  - 16362638; 10904
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a long-term use authorization to Core Mountain Enterprises, LLC, concerning 1,300 acres of land within the San Juan Resource Management Area of San Juan County, Colorado is proposed to allow the Silverton Outdoor Learning and Research Center (SOLRC) to provide for backcountry skiing, summer recreation, and educational facilities. The project site is located approximately five miles north of Silverton. The SOLRC currently operates at a small scale on private land and, under annual permits, on public lands. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to watershed resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat (particularly Canada lynx, which is a federally protected species), land use, socioeconomics, recreation, safety, transportation, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would provide for a 40-year use authorization, but the terms and other administrative details of the authorization would remain at the discretion of the authorizing agency. The authorization would provide for use of the entire 1,300 acres for skiing in the winter, hiking in the summer, and educational programs year-round; unrestricted skier access to all permit area terrain not closed or otherwise restricted by the SOLRC for snow safety reasons; use of the permit area by up to 475 SOLRC guests per day; construction of up to 17 temporary foot/skier bridges across Cement Creek within the permit areas, six of which would be on public land; a summer and winter mountaineering route following the ridgeline south from the upper terminal of the chairlift eastward across the top of Storm Peak, then northward and westward around the permit area boundary to tie into County Road (CR) 52 near Gladstone; a hiking trail from the ridgeline near the upper lift terminal down to the Colorado Basin, connecting with CR 52; and a small solar-powered radio repeater on public land near the existing radio reflector on 13,053 Peak, which is an unnamed peak northwest of Storm Peak. In addition to the actions authorized under the permits, the applicant would provide the following facilities on private land: a permanent base lodge, 10 yurts or cabins for overnight accommodation, and two rope tows on the ridgeline adjacent to the upper chairlift terminal. The two action alternatives to the proposed action would either authorize guided skiing only on public land and authorize an integrated guided /unguided operation. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for the same permit area, call for the implementation of an integrated stule and backcountry style snow safety approach, allow the same number of SOLRC guests and the proposed action, prohibit helicopter use on public land, and allow selective tree removal on public land. Recreational/educational facilities provided by the permit would include a mountaineering route, hiking trail, foot /skier bridges, a radio repeater, and an alternative skiing/hiking /biking trail from the lift top to the base area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expanding the SOLRC facilities onto a greater area of public land and issuance of a long-term use permit would increase the unique recreational and educational opportunities available to the public at the center, capitalizing on the San Juan Mountain's ruggged beauty, steep and challenging terrain, abundant snowfall, and intact high-elevation ecosystems. The expanded SOLRC would provide direct and indirect employment for local workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Less than 10 acres of public and private lands , and the associated watershed and vegetation resources, would be disturbed by facility developments. The project could affect Canada lynx, but this impact would be unlikely. Winter recreational access to public land would be restricted. The avalanche hazard index would increase slightly, affecting roads and parking areas. Recreational facilities to be provided would mar visual aesthetics in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0433D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040355, 302 pages and maps, July 29, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-20
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Ski Areas
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - San Juan Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16362638?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVERTON+OUTDOOR+LEARNING+AND+RECREATION+CENTER%2C+SAN+JUAN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SILVERTON+OUTDOOR+LEARNING+AND+RECREATION+CENTER%2C+SAN+JUAN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 36373734; 10899-040349_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the 122,300-acre Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (CCNCA) of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The area includes 75,550 acres of wilderness designated as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, 5,200 acres of which extends into eastern Utah at the CCNCA's western boundary. A 24-mile reach of the Colorado River dissects the planning area, running along the northern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3), an adaptive management approach, would focus on maintaining the current level of enjoyment of the study area's recreational opportunities and unique characteristics, while recognizing that increase future use will trigger the need for increased levels of management. Monitoring for land health and visitors' beneficial experiences would determine when increased levels of management were required. Objectives for this alternative include preserving the character of the area; preserving and enhancing traditional recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle use, horseback riding, hunting, and boating; maintaining land health and improving priority area of concern; and expanding educational and interpretive opportunities in high-use areas. Implementation actions, enhancing recreation while attending to the needs of conservation, would include incrementally moving toward concentrating activities in certain areas to control use, manage resource impacts, and minimize dispersed resource impacts; instituting systems for controlling visitation in high-use areas; and developing trains and adding facilities, as necessary, to restore natural resources impacted by excessive use. Specific areas addressed under the management plan include rights-of-way, geologic and topographic resources, soils, mineral and energy resources, water resources, climate and air quality, natural vegetation, weed management, forestry, wildlife habitat, fish and aquatic species habitat, special status species, rangeland and grazing, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and recreational resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would conserve, protect, and enhance the special and unique values of the public lands making up the CCNCA, including the Black Ridge Canyons, Ruby Canyon, and Rabbit Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and use of recreational facilities, particularly as visitation to the area rises, would result in disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation would also impair the enjoyment of wilderness resources for some dispersed recreationists. Continued grazing would result in further losses of vegetative habitat LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-353), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0152D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040349, Final EIS--596 pages, Appendices--381 pages, July 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-31
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373734?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+CANYONS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+BLACK+RIDGE+CANYONS+WILDERNESS%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+CANYONS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+BLACK+RIDGE+CANYONS+WILDERNESS%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 36370885; 10899-040349_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the 122,300-acre Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (CCNCA) of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The area includes 75,550 acres of wilderness designated as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, 5,200 acres of which extends into eastern Utah at the CCNCA's western boundary. A 24-mile reach of the Colorado River dissects the planning area, running along the northern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3), an adaptive management approach, would focus on maintaining the current level of enjoyment of the study area's recreational opportunities and unique characteristics, while recognizing that increase future use will trigger the need for increased levels of management. Monitoring for land health and visitors' beneficial experiences would determine when increased levels of management were required. Objectives for this alternative include preserving the character of the area; preserving and enhancing traditional recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle use, horseback riding, hunting, and boating; maintaining land health and improving priority area of concern; and expanding educational and interpretive opportunities in high-use areas. Implementation actions, enhancing recreation while attending to the needs of conservation, would include incrementally moving toward concentrating activities in certain areas to control use, manage resource impacts, and minimize dispersed resource impacts; instituting systems for controlling visitation in high-use areas; and developing trains and adding facilities, as necessary, to restore natural resources impacted by excessive use. Specific areas addressed under the management plan include rights-of-way, geologic and topographic resources, soils, mineral and energy resources, water resources, climate and air quality, natural vegetation, weed management, forestry, wildlife habitat, fish and aquatic species habitat, special status species, rangeland and grazing, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and recreational resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would conserve, protect, and enhance the special and unique values of the public lands making up the CCNCA, including the Black Ridge Canyons, Ruby Canyon, and Rabbit Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and use of recreational facilities, particularly as visitation to the area rises, would result in disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation would also impair the enjoyment of wilderness resources for some dispersed recreationists. Continued grazing would result in further losses of vegetative habitat LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-353), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0152D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040349, Final EIS--596 pages, Appendices--381 pages, July 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-31
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370885?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+CANYONS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+BLACK+RIDGE+CANYONS+WILDERNESS%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+CANYONS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+BLACK+RIDGE+CANYONS+WILDERNESS%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK, KLAMATH, JACKSON, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK, KLAMATH, JACKSON, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 36370743; 10898-040348_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive management plan for Crater Lake National Park, Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The park, which lies in southwest Oregon in the south-central portion of the Cascade Range. Near the center off the park lies the park's most spectacular resource, Crater Lake. The caldera lake is 1,943 feet deep, the deepest lake in the United States. The existing management plan was adopted in 1977. Much has changed since then, including visitor use patterns and demographics, demands for various recreational experiences and activities, and the addition of 22,400 acres to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the park and the facilities needed to support those uses, manage resources, and manage National Park Service operations. The newly proposed plan would provide management guidelines to be used for the next 15 to 20 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and resource education. Most existing recreational opportunities would remain, but new opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be nonmotorized and low impact. Opportunities to experience the lake by hiking and biking in a quieter setting would be explored via experimental seasonal road closures of East Rim Drive. Other front country opportunities, such as short trails and picnic areas, would be along the roadways. These new opportunities would provide transitional experiences between the developed areas (or transportation corridors) and the backcountry and also provide for enhanced interpretation, new research opportunities, and access to the backcountry. Winter snowmobile and showcoach access would remain along North Junction to the rim. A new science and learning center would form the core of the new research initiative. The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities, scientists, and educational groups. Parking shortfalls and road congestion would be managed by improving existing pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. Shuttles and other alternative transportation systems could be implemented. Additional funding for specific currently authorized projects would amount to $7.9 million The parks annual budget would remain at $4.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly increase visitor opportunities for recreation, education, and interpretation. Access to park facilities and services would be enhanced. Museum collections would be improved and provided with better protection. Increased staffing and other operational changes would improve resource management within the park. The park would contribute approximately $5.0 billion annually and 187,000 jobs to the local economy (2001 figures). NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the superintendent's residence would result in some loss of the historic character of the building. Research and educational activities could result in some moderate adverse impacts to some federally protected species. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 32 Stat. 20.
JF  - EPA number: 040348, 223 pages, July 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Volcanoes
KW  - Crater Lake National Park
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Public Law 32 Stat. 20, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370743?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK, KLAMATH, JACKSON, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 16361210; 10898
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive management plan for Crater Lake National Park, Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The park, which lies in southwest Oregon in the south-central portion of the Cascade Range. Near the center off the park lies the park's most spectacular resource, Crater Lake. The caldera lake is 1,943 feet deep, the deepest lake in the United States. The existing management plan was adopted in 1977. Much has changed since then, including visitor use patterns and demographics, demands for various recreational experiences and activities, and the addition of 22,400 acres to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the park and the facilities needed to support those uses, manage resources, and manage National Park Service operations. The newly proposed plan would provide management guidelines to be used for the next 15 to 20 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and resource education. Most existing recreational opportunities would remain, but new opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be nonmotorized and low impact. Opportunities to experience the lake by hiking and biking in a quieter setting would be explored via experimental seasonal road closures of East Rim Drive. Other front country opportunities, such as short trails and picnic areas, would be along the roadways. These new opportunities would provide transitional experiences between the developed areas (or transportation corridors) and the backcountry and also provide for enhanced interpretation, new research opportunities, and access to the backcountry. Winter snowmobile and showcoach access would remain along North Junction to the rim. A new science and learning center would form the core of the new research initiative. The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities, scientists, and educational groups. Parking shortfalls and road congestion would be managed by improving existing pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. Shuttles and other alternative transportation systems could be implemented. Additional funding for specific currently authorized projects would amount to $7.9 million The parks annual budget would remain at $4.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly increase visitor opportunities for recreation, education, and interpretation. Access to park facilities and services would be enhanced. Museum collections would be improved and provided with better protection. Increased staffing and other operational changes would improve resource management within the park. The park would contribute approximately $5.0 billion annually and 187,000 jobs to the local economy (2001 figures). NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the superintendent's residence would result in some loss of the historic character of the building. Research and educational activities could result in some moderate adverse impacts to some federally protected species. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 32 Stat. 20.
JF  - EPA number: 040348, 223 pages, July 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Volcanoes
KW  - Crater Lake National Park
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Public Law 32 Stat. 20, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361210?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 16361075; 10899
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the 122,300-acre Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (CCNCA) of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The area includes 75,550 acres of wilderness designated as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, 5,200 acres of which extends into eastern Utah at the CCNCA's western boundary. A 24-mile reach of the Colorado River dissects the planning area, running along the northern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3), an adaptive management approach, would focus on maintaining the current level of enjoyment of the study area's recreational opportunities and unique characteristics, while recognizing that increase future use will trigger the need for increased levels of management. Monitoring for land health and visitors' beneficial experiences would determine when increased levels of management were required. Objectives for this alternative include preserving the character of the area; preserving and enhancing traditional recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle use, horseback riding, hunting, and boating; maintaining land health and improving priority area of concern; and expanding educational and interpretive opportunities in high-use areas. Implementation actions, enhancing recreation while attending to the needs of conservation, would include incrementally moving toward concentrating activities in certain areas to control use, manage resource impacts, and minimize dispersed resource impacts; instituting systems for controlling visitation in high-use areas; and developing trains and adding facilities, as necessary, to restore natural resources impacted by excessive use. Specific areas addressed under the management plan include rights-of-way, geologic and topographic resources, soils, mineral and energy resources, water resources, climate and air quality, natural vegetation, weed management, forestry, wildlife habitat, fish and aquatic species habitat, special status species, rangeland and grazing, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and recreational resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would conserve, protect, and enhance the special and unique values of the public lands making up the CCNCA, including the Black Ridge Canyons, Ruby Canyon, and Rabbit Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and use of recreational facilities, particularly as visitation to the area rises, would result in disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation would also impair the enjoyment of wilderness resources for some dispersed recreationists. Continued grazing would result in further losses of vegetative habitat LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-353), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0152D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040349, Final EIS--596 pages, Appendices--381 pages, July 27, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-31
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361075?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+CANYONS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+BLACK+RIDGE+CANYONS+WILDERNESS%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+CANYONS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+BLACK+RIDGE+CANYONS+WILDERNESS%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SARATOGA NATIONAL HSTORICAL PARK, TOWNSHIPS OF STILLWATER AND SARATOGA, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36436186; 10891
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general management plan for Saratoga National Historical Park, located in the townships of Stillwater and Saratoga, New York, is proposed. The park was established to preserve and protect sites associated with the battles, siege, and surrender of British forces at Saratoga, which were decisive in the winning of American independence. The park interprets these and other sites, agents, and people associated with the 1777 military campaign in the Champlain-Hudson and Mohawk valleys, known as the Burgoyne Campaign. The plan, to be in place for 10 to 15 years, would prescribe for designated management areas, objectives for resource management, visitor use and experiences, and cooperative efforts and partnerships with private and public entities. The approach taken is general; the plan is not detailed, specific, or technical in nature, nor are their detailed or site-specific proposals. Four alternatives, including an alternative that would continue current management practices (Alternative A), were considered in the draft EIS, which is attached to this abbreviated final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would concentrate on improving visitor understanding of the events of the 1977 campaign by providing a more complete and logical depiction of the events. The alternative would include rehabilitation of key landscape features to help the visitor understand conditions faced by the armed forces and how landscape conditions were used and manipulated to serve tactical needs. This alternative would also incorporate the use of park staff to work with regional partners in developing outreach initiatives. Life-cycle costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.54 million to $22.66 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect, preserve, maintain, and interpret the landscapes, buildings, other structures, archaeological sites, artifacts, and archives significant to the outcome of the 1777 battles, siege, and surrender at Saratoga. Research and educational activities mounted at the park would contribute to the accumulation of knowledge and understanding of cultural and natural resources related to the Burgoyne Campaign. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated life-cycle costs for the preferred alternative would exceed current costs by $9.72 million to $11.88 million. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 97-460.
JF  - EPA number: 040341, Final EIS--62 pages, Draft EIS--258 pages, July 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - New York
KW  - Saratoga National Historical Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 97-460, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436186?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SARATOGA+NATIONAL+HSTORICAL+PARK%2C+TOWNSHIPS+OF+STILLWATER+AND+SARATOGA%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SARATOGA+NATIONAL+HSTORICAL+PARK%2C+TOWNSHIPS+OF+STILLWATER+AND+SARATOGA%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Stillwater, New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SARATOGA NATIONAL HSTORICAL PARK, TOWNSHIPS OF STILLWATER AND SARATOGA, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SARATOGA NATIONAL HSTORICAL PARK, TOWNSHIPS OF STILLWATER AND SARATOGA, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36373079; 10891-040341_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general management plan for Saratoga National Historical Park, located in the townships of Stillwater and Saratoga, New York, is proposed. The park was established to preserve and protect sites associated with the battles, siege, and surrender of British forces at Saratoga, which were decisive in the winning of American independence. The park interprets these and other sites, agents, and people associated with the 1777 military campaign in the Champlain-Hudson and Mohawk valleys, known as the Burgoyne Campaign. The plan, to be in place for 10 to 15 years, would prescribe for designated management areas, objectives for resource management, visitor use and experiences, and cooperative efforts and partnerships with private and public entities. The approach taken is general; the plan is not detailed, specific, or technical in nature, nor are their detailed or site-specific proposals. Four alternatives, including an alternative that would continue current management practices (Alternative A), were considered in the draft EIS, which is attached to this abbreviated final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would concentrate on improving visitor understanding of the events of the 1977 campaign by providing a more complete and logical depiction of the events. The alternative would include rehabilitation of key landscape features to help the visitor understand conditions faced by the armed forces and how landscape conditions were used and manipulated to serve tactical needs. This alternative would also incorporate the use of park staff to work with regional partners in developing outreach initiatives. Life-cycle costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.54 million to $22.66 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect, preserve, maintain, and interpret the landscapes, buildings, other structures, archaeological sites, artifacts, and archives significant to the outcome of the 1777 battles, siege, and surrender at Saratoga. Research and educational activities mounted at the park would contribute to the accumulation of knowledge and understanding of cultural and natural resources related to the Burgoyne Campaign. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated life-cycle costs for the preferred alternative would exceed current costs by $9.72 million to $11.88 million. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 97-460.
JF  - EPA number: 040341, Final EIS--62 pages, Draft EIS--258 pages, July 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - New York
KW  - Saratoga National Historical Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 97-460, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373079?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SARATOGA+NATIONAL+HSTORICAL+PARK%2C+TOWNSHIPS+OF+STILLWATER+AND+SARATOGA%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SARATOGA+NATIONAL+HSTORICAL+PARK%2C+TOWNSHIPS+OF+STILLWATER+AND+SARATOGA%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Stillwater, New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SARATOGA NATIONAL HSTORICAL PARK, TOWNSHIPS OF STILLWATER AND SARATOGA, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SARATOGA NATIONAL HSTORICAL PARK, TOWNSHIPS OF STILLWATER AND SARATOGA, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36370087; 10891-040341_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general management plan for Saratoga National Historical Park, located in the townships of Stillwater and Saratoga, New York, is proposed. The park was established to preserve and protect sites associated with the battles, siege, and surrender of British forces at Saratoga, which were decisive in the winning of American independence. The park interprets these and other sites, agents, and people associated with the 1777 military campaign in the Champlain-Hudson and Mohawk valleys, known as the Burgoyne Campaign. The plan, to be in place for 10 to 15 years, would prescribe for designated management areas, objectives for resource management, visitor use and experiences, and cooperative efforts and partnerships with private and public entities. The approach taken is general; the plan is not detailed, specific, or technical in nature, nor are their detailed or site-specific proposals. Four alternatives, including an alternative that would continue current management practices (Alternative A), were considered in the draft EIS, which is attached to this abbreviated final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would concentrate on improving visitor understanding of the events of the 1977 campaign by providing a more complete and logical depiction of the events. The alternative would include rehabilitation of key landscape features to help the visitor understand conditions faced by the armed forces and how landscape conditions were used and manipulated to serve tactical needs. This alternative would also incorporate the use of park staff to work with regional partners in developing outreach initiatives. Life-cycle costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.54 million to $22.66 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect, preserve, maintain, and interpret the landscapes, buildings, other structures, archaeological sites, artifacts, and archives significant to the outcome of the 1777 battles, siege, and surrender at Saratoga. Research and educational activities mounted at the park would contribute to the accumulation of knowledge and understanding of cultural and natural resources related to the Burgoyne Campaign. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated life-cycle costs for the preferred alternative would exceed current costs by $9.72 million to $11.88 million. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 97-460.
JF  - EPA number: 040341, Final EIS--62 pages, Draft EIS--258 pages, July 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - New York
KW  - Saratoga National Historical Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 97-460, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370087?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SARATOGA+NATIONAL+HSTORICAL+PARK%2C+TOWNSHIPS+OF+STILLWATER+AND+SARATOGA%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SARATOGA+NATIONAL+HSTORICAL+PARK%2C+TOWNSHIPS+OF+STILLWATER+AND+SARATOGA%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Stillwater, New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, PRICE, UTAH.
AN  - 36436146; 10888
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management's Price Field Office (PFO) in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The PFO lands encompass 2.5 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral resources. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to air quality; soil, watter, riparian, and vegetation resources, cultural resources and paleontologic resources, visual resources, fish and wildlife habitat, wild horse and burros management, fire and fuels management, forest and woodland resources, livestock grazing, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, lands and realty, mineral and energy development, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and wild and scenic river corridors. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide for a variety of resource needs throughout the PFO area. The alternative would maximize minerals development potential in the areas with the greatest potential for development and target recreational management in areas with the highest potential for recreational development. Approximately 75 oil and gas wells would be allowed per year on a total of 1.18 million acres under standard lease terms. Controlled surface use for oil and gas development would be allowed on 574,000 acres and no-occupancy surface use on 574,000 acres. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on 149,000 acres, and 584,000 acres would be closed to leasing. Two additional areas of critical concern would be added, bringing the total to 15 areas encompassing 461,000 acres. Protective management would be implemented for 123 miles of scenic river and 100 miles of recreational river. Special recreation management would be undertaken on 2,770 acres in the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, 225,00 acres in Desolation Canyon, 38,000 acres in Labyrinth Canyon, 936,000 acres in San Rafael Swell, and 32,000 acres in Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of the oil and gas resources within the PFO area, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and road infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040338, Draft EIS--987 pages, Appendices & Maps--307 pages, July 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-25
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436146?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, PRICE, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, PRICE, UTAH.
AN  - 36360145; 10888-040338_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management's Price Field Office (PFO) in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The PFO lands encompass 2.5 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral resources. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to air quality; soil, watter, riparian, and vegetation resources, cultural resources and paleontologic resources, visual resources, fish and wildlife habitat, wild horse and burros management, fire and fuels management, forest and woodland resources, livestock grazing, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, lands and realty, mineral and energy development, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and wild and scenic river corridors. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide for a variety of resource needs throughout the PFO area. The alternative would maximize minerals development potential in the areas with the greatest potential for development and target recreational management in areas with the highest potential for recreational development. Approximately 75 oil and gas wells would be allowed per year on a total of 1.18 million acres under standard lease terms. Controlled surface use for oil and gas development would be allowed on 574,000 acres and no-occupancy surface use on 574,000 acres. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on 149,000 acres, and 584,000 acres would be closed to leasing. Two additional areas of critical concern would be added, bringing the total to 15 areas encompassing 461,000 acres. Protective management would be implemented for 123 miles of scenic river and 100 miles of recreational river. Special recreation management would be undertaken on 2,770 acres in the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, 225,00 acres in Desolation Canyon, 38,000 acres in Labyrinth Canyon, 936,000 acres in San Rafael Swell, and 32,000 acres in Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of the oil and gas resources within the PFO area, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and road infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040338, Draft EIS--987 pages, Appendices & Maps--307 pages, July 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-25
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360145?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, PRICE, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, PRICE, UTAH.
AN  - 36359444; 10888-040338_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management's Price Field Office (PFO) in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The PFO lands encompass 2.5 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral resources. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to air quality; soil, watter, riparian, and vegetation resources, cultural resources and paleontologic resources, visual resources, fish and wildlife habitat, wild horse and burros management, fire and fuels management, forest and woodland resources, livestock grazing, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, lands and realty, mineral and energy development, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and wild and scenic river corridors. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide for a variety of resource needs throughout the PFO area. The alternative would maximize minerals development potential in the areas with the greatest potential for development and target recreational management in areas with the highest potential for recreational development. Approximately 75 oil and gas wells would be allowed per year on a total of 1.18 million acres under standard lease terms. Controlled surface use for oil and gas development would be allowed on 574,000 acres and no-occupancy surface use on 574,000 acres. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on 149,000 acres, and 584,000 acres would be closed to leasing. Two additional areas of critical concern would be added, bringing the total to 15 areas encompassing 461,000 acres. Protective management would be implemented for 123 miles of scenic river and 100 miles of recreational river. Special recreation management would be undertaken on 2,770 acres in the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, 225,00 acres in Desolation Canyon, 38,000 acres in Labyrinth Canyon, 936,000 acres in San Rafael Swell, and 32,000 acres in Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of the oil and gas resources within the PFO area, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and road infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040338, Draft EIS--987 pages, Appendices & Maps--307 pages, July 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-25
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359444?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, PRICE, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2004).
AN  - 16366901; 12102
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management's Price Field Office (PFO) in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The PFO lands encompass 2.5 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral resources. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to air quality; soil, water, riparian, and vegetation resources, cultural resources and paleontologic resources, visual resources, fish and wildlife habitat, wild horse and burros management, fire and fuels management, forest and woodland resources, livestock grazing, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, lands and realty, mineral and energy development, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and wild and scenic river corridors. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), were considered in this draft EIS of July 2004. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide for a variety of resource needs throughout the PFO area. The alternative would maximize minerals development potential in the areas with the greatest potential for development and target recreational management in areas with the highest potential for recreational development. Approximately 75 oil and gas wells would be allowed per year on a total of 1.18 million acres under standard lease terms. Controlled surface use for oil and gas development would be allowed on 574,000 acres and no-occupancy surface use on 574,000 acres. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on 149,000 acres, and 584,000 acres would be closed to leasing. Two additional areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added, bringing the total to 15 areas encompassing 461,000 acres. Protective management would be implemented for 123 miles of scenic river and 100 miles of recreational river. Special recreation management would be undertaken on 2,770 acres in the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, 225,00 acres in Desolation Canyon, 38,000 acres in Labyrinth Canyon, 936,000 acres in San Rafael Swell, and 32,000 acres in Nine Mile Canyon. This supplement to the draft EIS provides additional information and analysis related to four candidate ACECs not mentioned above or addressed in the draft EIS. The newly considered areas encompass approximately 256,600 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of the oil and gas resources within the PFO area, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and road infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0070D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060230, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern--63 pages, Draft EIS--987 pages, July 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-25
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366901?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2004%29.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRACY-SILVER LAKE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36437470; 10876
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a new 12-kilovolt (kV) overhead powerline from Tracy to Silver Lake in Washoe County, Nevada are proposed. The transmission line would originate at the Tracy Power Plant and extend approximately 34 miles through the Spanish Springs Valley to the Silver Lake substation in the Stead area. The project would also include construction of two substations, one in the northern Spanish Springs Valley (Sugarloaf substation) and a second at the Reno-Stead Airport (Reno-Stead Airport substation). The project would be implemented in two phases. The first phase would include construction of approximately 17.5 miles of transmission line from the Tracy Plant to a new substation in the north Spanish Springs area; this phase would likely be completed in 2005. In the second phase, approximately 17.5 miles of transmission line would be constructed from the Sugarloaf substation to the Silver Lake substation in Stead, and the Reno-Stead Airport substation would be constructed on land owned by the Airport Authority of Washoe County; the second phase would be expected to begin in 2009. Approximately 12 miles of the line would be constructed on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 4.4 miles on land owned by the Airport Authority of Washoe County, and 18 miles on private land within Sparks, Reno, and Washoe County. Owners of private land would be compensated for the rights-of-way easements. Five transmission line alternatives, two substation alternatives, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new powerline would improve the reliability of the power supply to customers in the Spanish Springs Valley and Stead areas of Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 165 acres of land, 58 acres of which would be public land. Approximately 34 acres of the proposed rights-of-way is located along existing transmission or distribution line routes. The completed project would require a 40-foot-wide rights-of-way, but the actual width of the temporary disturbance would be 30 feet, resulting in only minor removal of vegetation, including wetland habitat and rangeland, and possibly resulting in the introduction of nonnative plant species into the area. The width of long-term disturbance, primarily from access roads and supporting structures would average 15 feet. The preferred alternative would traverse within 600 feet of 610 acres of highly erodable soils. The transmission line would come within 150 feet of 44 residential structures, potentially requiring displacement of some of those structures. Sage grouse and pygmy rabbit, both federally protected species, and several federally protected plant species could be affected. The structures will mar visual aesthetics in the area and present a minor hazard to birds due to the potential for collisions. Placement of the structures could affect safety-related airspace at the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
JF  - EPA number: 040326, 801 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-29
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437470?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACY-SILVER+LAKE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRACY-SILVER+LAKE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JACK MORROW HILLS COORDINATED ACTIVITY PLAN, SWEETWATER, FREMONT, AND SUBLETTE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36433004; 10875
AB  - PURPOSE: the implementation of a coordinated activity plan for the Jack Morrow Hills area, Sweetwater, Fremont, and Sublette counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area contains 574,800 acres of federal land and federal mineral estate in the southwestern portion of the state. The area encompasses the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, the White Mountain Petroglyphs, the Oregon Buttes Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs); a portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC; the Oregon Buttes; the Honeycomb Buttes, Greater Sand Dunes, Buffalo Hump, Whitehorse Creek, South Pinnacles, the Alkali Draw wilderness study areas; and three special recreation management areas (Greater Sand Dunes, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer/Pony Express/California National Historic Trails). The plan would provide management direction to prevent or address conflicts among potential development of energy resources, recreational activities and facilities, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and provide more specific management direction for other land and resources uses, including livestock grazing and important wildlife habitat. Specific planning criteria include those related to hydrocarbon leasing and development, locatable minerals, mitigation guidelines, rangelands, livestock grazing management, coal leasing, wilderness study area management, ACECs, wild horse management, and wild and scenic rivers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of June 2000. A January 2003 supplemental draft EIS considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative. The action alternatives would provide management direction for certain resources (e.g., desert elk and other big game habitat, unique sand dune-mountain shrub habitat, unstabilized sand dunes and stabilized sand dunes, and cultural sites) and allow leasing and development of fluids and other energy resources, recreational activities, grazing practices, and other activities at varying levels. The preferred alternative, a combination of all other alternatives, would place greater emphasis than at present on protection of the natural environment. The alternative would provide for staged oil and gas leasing and related development. Portions of the planning area would be available for leasing consideration. Prior to releasing other areas for oil and gas development, these areas would be withheld from leasing consideration until assurance that adequate big game habitat would be retained. This final environmental impact statement also considers five alternatives and selects the previously preferred alternative as the finally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would help ensure the appropriate balance among resource values and uses, particularly with respect to grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, and energy resources developments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management directions would have impacts on cultural resources, paleontological resources, fire management, land use, livestock grazing, mineral leasing, off-road vehicle use, other recreational uses, the socioeconomic status of area residents, special status species, and vegetation and wetland and other riparian resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0373D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0196D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040325, Volume 1--666 pages, Volume 2--751 pages, CD-ROM, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-04.019+1610
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433004?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACK+MORROW+HILLS+COORDINATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+SUBLETTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACK+MORROW+HILLS+COORDINATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+SUBLETTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36429829; 10874
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429829?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36382636; 10874-040324_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36378904; 10874-040324_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378904?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36378738; 10874-040324_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378738?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36378500; 10874-040324_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378500?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRACY-SILVER LAKE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - TRACY-SILVER LAKE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36373172; 10876-040326_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a new 12-kilovolt (kV) overhead powerline from Tracy to Silver Lake in Washoe County, Nevada are proposed. The transmission line would originate at the Tracy Power Plant and extend approximately 34 miles through the Spanish Springs Valley to the Silver Lake substation in the Stead area. The project would also include construction of two substations, one in the northern Spanish Springs Valley (Sugarloaf substation) and a second at the Reno-Stead Airport (Reno-Stead Airport substation). The project would be implemented in two phases. The first phase would include construction of approximately 17.5 miles of transmission line from the Tracy Plant to a new substation in the north Spanish Springs area; this phase would likely be completed in 2005. In the second phase, approximately 17.5 miles of transmission line would be constructed from the Sugarloaf substation to the Silver Lake substation in Stead, and the Reno-Stead Airport substation would be constructed on land owned by the Airport Authority of Washoe County; the second phase would be expected to begin in 2009. Approximately 12 miles of the line would be constructed on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 4.4 miles on land owned by the Airport Authority of Washoe County, and 18 miles on private land within Sparks, Reno, and Washoe County. Owners of private land would be compensated for the rights-of-way easements. Five transmission line alternatives, two substation alternatives, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new powerline would improve the reliability of the power supply to customers in the Spanish Springs Valley and Stead areas of Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 165 acres of land, 58 acres of which would be public land. Approximately 34 acres of the proposed rights-of-way is located along existing transmission or distribution line routes. The completed project would require a 40-foot-wide rights-of-way, but the actual width of the temporary disturbance would be 30 feet, resulting in only minor removal of vegetation, including wetland habitat and rangeland, and possibly resulting in the introduction of nonnative plant species into the area. The width of long-term disturbance, primarily from access roads and supporting structures would average 15 feet. The preferred alternative would traverse within 600 feet of 610 acres of highly erodable soils. The transmission line would come within 150 feet of 44 residential structures, potentially requiring displacement of some of those structures. Sage grouse and pygmy rabbit, both federally protected species, and several federally protected plant species could be affected. The structures will mar visual aesthetics in the area and present a minor hazard to birds due to the potential for collisions. Placement of the structures could affect safety-related airspace at the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
JF  - EPA number: 040326, 801 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-29
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373172?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACY-SILVER+LAKE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRACY-SILVER+LAKE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JACK MORROW HILLS COORDINATED ACTIVITY PLAN, SWEETWATER, FREMONT, AND SUBLETTE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - JACK MORROW HILLS COORDINATED ACTIVITY PLAN, SWEETWATER, FREMONT, AND SUBLETTE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36372495; 10875-040325_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: the implementation of a coordinated activity plan for the Jack Morrow Hills area, Sweetwater, Fremont, and Sublette counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area contains 574,800 acres of federal land and federal mineral estate in the southwestern portion of the state. The area encompasses the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, the White Mountain Petroglyphs, the Oregon Buttes Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs); a portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC; the Oregon Buttes; the Honeycomb Buttes, Greater Sand Dunes, Buffalo Hump, Whitehorse Creek, South Pinnacles, the Alkali Draw wilderness study areas; and three special recreation management areas (Greater Sand Dunes, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer/Pony Express/California National Historic Trails). The plan would provide management direction to prevent or address conflicts among potential development of energy resources, recreational activities and facilities, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and provide more specific management direction for other land and resources uses, including livestock grazing and important wildlife habitat. Specific planning criteria include those related to hydrocarbon leasing and development, locatable minerals, mitigation guidelines, rangelands, livestock grazing management, coal leasing, wilderness study area management, ACECs, wild horse management, and wild and scenic rivers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of June 2000. A January 2003 supplemental draft EIS considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative. The action alternatives would provide management direction for certain resources (e.g., desert elk and other big game habitat, unique sand dune-mountain shrub habitat, unstabilized sand dunes and stabilized sand dunes, and cultural sites) and allow leasing and development of fluids and other energy resources, recreational activities, grazing practices, and other activities at varying levels. The preferred alternative, a combination of all other alternatives, would place greater emphasis than at present on protection of the natural environment. The alternative would provide for staged oil and gas leasing and related development. Portions of the planning area would be available for leasing consideration. Prior to releasing other areas for oil and gas development, these areas would be withheld from leasing consideration until assurance that adequate big game habitat would be retained. This final environmental impact statement also considers five alternatives and selects the previously preferred alternative as the finally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would help ensure the appropriate balance among resource values and uses, particularly with respect to grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, and energy resources developments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management directions would have impacts on cultural resources, paleontological resources, fire management, land use, livestock grazing, mineral leasing, off-road vehicle use, other recreational uses, the socioeconomic status of area residents, special status species, and vegetation and wetland and other riparian resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0373D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0196D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040325, Volume 1--666 pages, Volume 2--751 pages, CD-ROM, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-04.019+1610
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372495?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACK+MORROW+HILLS+COORDINATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+SUBLETTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACK+MORROW+HILLS+COORDINATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+SUBLETTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JACK MORROW HILLS COORDINATED ACTIVITY PLAN, SWEETWATER, FREMONT, AND SUBLETTE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - JACK MORROW HILLS COORDINATED ACTIVITY PLAN, SWEETWATER, FREMONT, AND SUBLETTE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36369662; 10875-040325_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: the implementation of a coordinated activity plan for the Jack Morrow Hills area, Sweetwater, Fremont, and Sublette counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area contains 574,800 acres of federal land and federal mineral estate in the southwestern portion of the state. The area encompasses the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, the White Mountain Petroglyphs, the Oregon Buttes Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs); a portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC; the Oregon Buttes; the Honeycomb Buttes, Greater Sand Dunes, Buffalo Hump, Whitehorse Creek, South Pinnacles, the Alkali Draw wilderness study areas; and three special recreation management areas (Greater Sand Dunes, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer/Pony Express/California National Historic Trails). The plan would provide management direction to prevent or address conflicts among potential development of energy resources, recreational activities and facilities, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and provide more specific management direction for other land and resources uses, including livestock grazing and important wildlife habitat. Specific planning criteria include those related to hydrocarbon leasing and development, locatable minerals, mitigation guidelines, rangelands, livestock grazing management, coal leasing, wilderness study area management, ACECs, wild horse management, and wild and scenic rivers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of June 2000. A January 2003 supplemental draft EIS considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative. The action alternatives would provide management direction for certain resources (e.g., desert elk and other big game habitat, unique sand dune-mountain shrub habitat, unstabilized sand dunes and stabilized sand dunes, and cultural sites) and allow leasing and development of fluids and other energy resources, recreational activities, grazing practices, and other activities at varying levels. The preferred alternative, a combination of all other alternatives, would place greater emphasis than at present on protection of the natural environment. The alternative would provide for staged oil and gas leasing and related development. Portions of the planning area would be available for leasing consideration. Prior to releasing other areas for oil and gas development, these areas would be withheld from leasing consideration until assurance that adequate big game habitat would be retained. This final environmental impact statement also considers five alternatives and selects the previously preferred alternative as the finally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would help ensure the appropriate balance among resource values and uses, particularly with respect to grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, and energy resources developments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management directions would have impacts on cultural resources, paleontological resources, fire management, land use, livestock grazing, mineral leasing, off-road vehicle use, other recreational uses, the socioeconomic status of area residents, special status species, and vegetation and wetland and other riparian resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0373D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0196D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040325, Volume 1--666 pages, Volume 2--751 pages, CD-ROM, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-04.019+1610
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369662?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACK+MORROW+HILLS+COORDINATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+SUBLETTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACK+MORROW+HILLS+COORDINATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+SUBLETTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36368952; 10874-040324_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368952?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - WIND RIVER GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36365533; 10874-040324_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within the Wind River natural gas field of Fremont County, Wyoming is proposed. The Wind River project area encompasses approximately 91,520 acres, including 47,066 acres in private ownership, 39,489 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawal Area, 14,409 acres owned by members of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes, and 546 acres of state land. The area lies in townships 3 and 4 North and ranges 2 through 5 East, approximately 20 miles northwest of Riverton. The area contains five development areas: Pavilion, Muddy, Ridge, Sand Mesa, Sand Mesa South, and Coastal Extension. The proposed development would add to the 178 producing wells within the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a the natural gas resource would be developed by drilling up to 325 new wells at up to 325 locations over the next 20 years and developing the additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing roads and pipelines, with a forecasted success rate of 81 percent (263 producing wells). Drilling projections were based on drilling projections and spacing orders within the area. Alternative A would provide for the development of up to 485 new wells at up to 485 locations as well as the necessary ancillary facilities. Alternative B would provide for the development of up to 233 new wells at up to 233 locations as well as the necessary infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would deny the drilling and development proposal as submitted, but drilling of wells would be granted on a case-by-case basis on private holdings by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and on tribal minerals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Up to 100 wells at up to 100 locations could be drilled under this alternative. Each well and the associated infrastructure would be reclaimed following closure of the wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would provide a needed source of cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy, decreasing the nation's dependence on coal and foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total short-term disturbance resulting from the proposed action would amount to 1,982 acres, though a much smaller total area would be disturbed at any one time. During the life of the project total surface disturbance would be reduced to 422.7 acres, assuming an 81 percent success rate. Disturbed areas would include farmland, rangeland, and residential land, as well as wetland land and land used for recreational purposes. Mixed-grass prairie, greasewood and saltbush fans and flats, and riparian shrub. Desert land and other vegetation providing wildlife habitat, including federally protected species, would be disturbed or destroyed. Geological resources would be affected by increased surface runoff, increased erosion, subsidence, piping and gullying, and the initiation of mass movements, but these impacts would be short-term. Minor long-term increase in atmospheric nitrogen deposition would occur. Impacts to surface water could include disruption of surface drainage systems, increased runoff and erosion, increased levels of suspended sediments, reduction in peak flows, increased sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs, and degradation of water quality. The developments would take place in an area encompassing 150 cultural resource sites. The project would affect paleontological, historic, and archaeological resources. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by well structures and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2447), Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a to 396g), and Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040324, Draft EIS--978 pages and maps, Appendices--312 pages, Technical Support Document--627 pages, July 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365533?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WIND+RIVER+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA, SAN BENITO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
AN  - 36437324; 10872
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the land and resource management plan for the 75,829-acre Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) of San Benito and Fresno counties, California is proposed. Previous decisions were based on an area covering approximately 50,000 acres of public land. New geographic information system data indicates that the CCCMA encompasses 75,829 acres, including 10,668 acres of private inholdings and 1,964 acres of state lands. Approximately 30,128 acres of the area lie within an Area of Critical Concern (ACEC) based on the high concentrations of natural asbestos occurring in its serpentine soils; the red zone area extends 840 acres beyond the ACEC boundary. The San Benito Mountain Research Natural Area (SBMNRA) encompasses 1,870 acres. The San Benito Mountain Wilderness Study Area encompasses 1,488 acres. Health concerns related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on unpaved roads, trails, and barren slopes, generating asbestos fibers that can be inhaled by visitors. Serpentine soils in the CCMA have given rise to a unique assemblage of plants and plant communities, some of which are rare and in danger of extinction. The proposed management plan amendment would address air quality, watershed resources, human health, biological resources, recreation resources, cultural resources, special management areas, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental justice. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate and current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would restrict OHV use moderately. The designated route network would provide motorized access throughout the CCMA. Open play on barrens would be limited to the Clear Creek watershed. Motorized vehicle use in a portion of the Condon Peak area would be limited to four-wheeled vehicles only. The SBMNRA would be expanded to almost 4,000 acres. Alternative B would focus on enhancing OHV recreational opportunities. Camping would continue at Oak Flat and the six staging areas as well as at informal sites outside riparian zones. This alternative would designate the largest network of routes and barrens available for OHV use. Barrens designated for use would be dispersed whtourhg the CCMA. The SBMNRA would be expanded to almost 3,500 acres. Alternative C would focus on limiting OHV recreational activities while placing a higher priority on non-OHV recreation and protecting sensitive resources. All available barren play areas would be located in the Clear Creek watershed. Camping would be restricted to designated areas. The SRMNRA boundaries would be expanded to approximately 4,500 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management alternatives were specifically configured to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts to both ecosystem function and the human environment. OHV activities and other recreation activities would be supported, while human health and the environment would be protected. Endangered plant species habitat would enjoy a particularly high degree of protection and wilderness values would remain intact. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued OHV use would destroy vegetation and cause wind- and water-related erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. Restriction of HOV use would impede access to some area, particularly remove areas, for recreationists dependent on motor vehicles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040322, 312 pages and maps, July 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-30
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Clear Creek Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437324?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA, SAN BENITO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA, SAN BENITO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
AN  - 36372934; 10872-040322_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the land and resource management plan for the 75,829-acre Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) of San Benito and Fresno counties, California is proposed. Previous decisions were based on an area covering approximately 50,000 acres of public land. New geographic information system data indicates that the CCCMA encompasses 75,829 acres, including 10,668 acres of private inholdings and 1,964 acres of state lands. Approximately 30,128 acres of the area lie within an Area of Critical Concern (ACEC) based on the high concentrations of natural asbestos occurring in its serpentine soils; the red zone area extends 840 acres beyond the ACEC boundary. The San Benito Mountain Research Natural Area (SBMNRA) encompasses 1,870 acres. The San Benito Mountain Wilderness Study Area encompasses 1,488 acres. Health concerns related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on unpaved roads, trails, and barren slopes, generating asbestos fibers that can be inhaled by visitors. Serpentine soils in the CCMA have given rise to a unique assemblage of plants and plant communities, some of which are rare and in danger of extinction. The proposed management plan amendment would address air quality, watershed resources, human health, biological resources, recreation resources, cultural resources, special management areas, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental justice. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate and current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would restrict OHV use moderately. The designated route network would provide motorized access throughout the CCMA. Open play on barrens would be limited to the Clear Creek watershed. Motorized vehicle use in a portion of the Condon Peak area would be limited to four-wheeled vehicles only. The SBMNRA would be expanded to almost 4,000 acres. Alternative B would focus on enhancing OHV recreational opportunities. Camping would continue at Oak Flat and the six staging areas as well as at informal sites outside riparian zones. This alternative would designate the largest network of routes and barrens available for OHV use. Barrens designated for use would be dispersed whtourhg the CCMA. The SBMNRA would be expanded to almost 3,500 acres. Alternative C would focus on limiting OHV recreational activities while placing a higher priority on non-OHV recreation and protecting sensitive resources. All available barren play areas would be located in the Clear Creek watershed. Camping would be restricted to designated areas. The SRMNRA boundaries would be expanded to approximately 4,500 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management alternatives were specifically configured to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts to both ecosystem function and the human environment. OHV activities and other recreation activities would be supported, while human health and the environment would be protected. Endangered plant species habitat would enjoy a particularly high degree of protection and wilderness values would remain intact. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued OHV use would destroy vegetation and cause wind- and water-related erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. Restriction of HOV use would impede access to some area, particularly remove areas, for recreationists dependent on motor vehicles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040322, 312 pages and maps, July 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-30
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Clear Creek Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372934?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA, SAN BENITO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA, SAN BENITO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
AN  - 36360059; 10872-040322_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the land and resource management plan for the 75,829-acre Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) of San Benito and Fresno counties, California is proposed. Previous decisions were based on an area covering approximately 50,000 acres of public land. New geographic information system data indicates that the CCCMA encompasses 75,829 acres, including 10,668 acres of private inholdings and 1,964 acres of state lands. Approximately 30,128 acres of the area lie within an Area of Critical Concern (ACEC) based on the high concentrations of natural asbestos occurring in its serpentine soils; the red zone area extends 840 acres beyond the ACEC boundary. The San Benito Mountain Research Natural Area (SBMNRA) encompasses 1,870 acres. The San Benito Mountain Wilderness Study Area encompasses 1,488 acres. Health concerns related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on unpaved roads, trails, and barren slopes, generating asbestos fibers that can be inhaled by visitors. Serpentine soils in the CCMA have given rise to a unique assemblage of plants and plant communities, some of which are rare and in danger of extinction. The proposed management plan amendment would address air quality, watershed resources, human health, biological resources, recreation resources, cultural resources, special management areas, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental justice. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate and current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would restrict OHV use moderately. The designated route network would provide motorized access throughout the CCMA. Open play on barrens would be limited to the Clear Creek watershed. Motorized vehicle use in a portion of the Condon Peak area would be limited to four-wheeled vehicles only. The SBMNRA would be expanded to almost 4,000 acres. Alternative B would focus on enhancing OHV recreational opportunities. Camping would continue at Oak Flat and the six staging areas as well as at informal sites outside riparian zones. This alternative would designate the largest network of routes and barrens available for OHV use. Barrens designated for use would be dispersed whtourhg the CCMA. The SBMNRA would be expanded to almost 3,500 acres. Alternative C would focus on limiting OHV recreational activities while placing a higher priority on non-OHV recreation and protecting sensitive resources. All available barren play areas would be located in the Clear Creek watershed. Camping would be restricted to designated areas. The SRMNRA boundaries would be expanded to approximately 4,500 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management alternatives were specifically configured to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts to both ecosystem function and the human environment. OHV activities and other recreation activities would be supported, while human health and the environment would be protected. Endangered plant species habitat would enjoy a particularly high degree of protection and wilderness values would remain intact. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued OHV use would destroy vegetation and cause wind- and water-related erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. Restriction of HOV use would impede access to some area, particularly remove areas, for recreationists dependent on motor vehicles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040322, 312 pages and maps, July 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-30
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Clear Creek Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360059?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHATTAHOOCHE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
AN  - 36434160; 10889
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (NRA), located in the Atlanta area of Georgia is proposed. The revised plan would update the existing plan adopted in 1989. The 10,000 NRA extends 48-miles through the rapidly developing area between Atlanta and Lake Lanier. The area is visited by more than 2.6 million persons annually. This high level of use and the associated demands on facilities and resources are expected to increase in the future. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue current management practices, are considered in this draft EIS. Five management prescriptions define the targeted visitor experiences and resource conditions that could occur under the alternatives. The preferred alternative, known as the Centralized Access Alternative, would draw visitors toward a system of three hubs in which administrative and interpretive facilities would provide visitor information, rest rooms, parking lots and roads, trail heads, and access to the Chattahoochee River. The hubs would provide an opportunity to optimize the visitors' experience and understanding of the park. The visitors' experience would be focused on the interpretive activities and other facilities available while in the hubs and provide for solitude and natural settings outside the hubs. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 40 percent of the park would be available to visitors through developed, natural recreation, and cultural resource zones. Five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, would be allowed. The Focus of Solitude Alternative would minimize development in the park and maximize the opportunity for visitors to experience solitude in natural settings that would be relative insulated from the surrounding urban conditions, particularly in newly acquired areas. This alternative would allow continued use of existing facilities. Some areas subject to active use would continue to experience such use, but with the option to improve resource conditions through various means. The expanded Use Alternative would expand and distribute visitor access throughout the park, including newly acquired parcels and would provide a wide variety of visitor experiences. New facilities would be developed and existing facilities would be refurbished. Connectivity to existing neighborhoods would be optimized and expanded. The National Park Service (NPS) could provide for a wide variety of visitor experiences and would provide trail linkages to areas outside the park. Capital cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $30,3 million. Annual operating and staffing costs are estimated at $700,000 and $3.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The amended plan would define strategies that would allow for diverse visitor uses of the NRA, protect park resources, and provide for the enjoyment of visitors. The preferred alternative would allow the NPS to concentrate limited resources in the hubs, while maintaining a wide variety of visitor uses. Educational opportunities within the NRA would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though developed areas would cover 272 acres, only portions of the vegetation and associated wildlife habitat on this acreage would be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-154.
JF  - EPA number: 040339, 384 pages, July 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Urban Development
KW  - Chattahooche River National Recreation Area
KW  - Georgia
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-154, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434160?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHATTAHOOCHE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CHATTAHOOCHE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
AN  - 36372893; 10889-040339_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (NRA), located in the Atlanta area of Georgia is proposed. The revised plan would update the existing plan adopted in 1989. The 10,000 NRA extends 48-miles through the rapidly developing area between Atlanta and Lake Lanier. The area is visited by more than 2.6 million persons annually. This high level of use and the associated demands on facilities and resources are expected to increase in the future. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue current management practices, are considered in this draft EIS. Five management prescriptions define the targeted visitor experiences and resource conditions that could occur under the alternatives. The preferred alternative, known as the Centralized Access Alternative, would draw visitors toward a system of three hubs in which administrative and interpretive facilities would provide visitor information, rest rooms, parking lots and roads, trail heads, and access to the Chattahoochee River. The hubs would provide an opportunity to optimize the visitors' experience and understanding of the park. The visitors' experience would be focused on the interpretive activities and other facilities available while in the hubs and provide for solitude and natural settings outside the hubs. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 40 percent of the park would be available to visitors through developed, natural recreation, and cultural resource zones. Five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, would be allowed. The Focus of Solitude Alternative would minimize development in the park and maximize the opportunity for visitors to experience solitude in natural settings that would be relative insulated from the surrounding urban conditions, particularly in newly acquired areas. This alternative would allow continued use of existing facilities. Some areas subject to active use would continue to experience such use, but with the option to improve resource conditions through various means. The expanded Use Alternative would expand and distribute visitor access throughout the park, including newly acquired parcels and would provide a wide variety of visitor experiences. New facilities would be developed and existing facilities would be refurbished. Connectivity to existing neighborhoods would be optimized and expanded. The National Park Service (NPS) could provide for a wide variety of visitor experiences and would provide trail linkages to areas outside the park. Capital cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $30,3 million. Annual operating and staffing costs are estimated at $700,000 and $3.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The amended plan would define strategies that would allow for diverse visitor uses of the NRA, protect park resources, and provide for the enjoyment of visitors. The preferred alternative would allow the NPS to concentrate limited resources in the hubs, while maintaining a wide variety of visitor uses. Educational opportunities within the NRA would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though developed areas would cover 272 acres, only portions of the vegetation and associated wildlife habitat on this acreage would be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-154.
JF  - EPA number: 040339, 384 pages, July 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Urban Development
KW  - Chattahooche River National Recreation Area
KW  - Georgia
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-154, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372893?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAY MOUNTAIN COAL LEASE LAND USE ANALYSIS, REDBIRD RANGER DISTRICT, DANIEL BOONE NATINOAL FOREST, LESLIE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 36443319; 10861
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of coal deposits in three National Forest System tracts (3094Az), 3094Bb, and 3094Be) in the Gray Mountain area f the Redbird Ranger District, Daniel Boone National Forest, Leslie County, Kentucky is proposed. The leases would be granted to the Bledsoe Coal Leasing Company. The three tracts encompass 1,210.44 acres of federal coal reserves in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. More specifically, the tracts are located on and around Gray Mountain between the Beech Fork and Greasy Creek drainages in southern Leslie County. The Beech Fork coal mining complex is located adjacent to the three Forest Service tracts and is an existing permitted facility; it is not part of the considerations in this final EIS. The applicant would use underground mining methods to extract the coal reserves. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to topography and geologic resources, soils, vegetation, wildlife and fish habitat, special status species, surface and groundwater resources, air quality, visual resources, noise, socioeconomic resources, land use, transportation, recreation, and cultural, historic, and paleontological resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, approximately 2.8 million tons of federal coal reserves would be removed over the next 10 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mining of the lease tracts would assist in addressing the national need for coal resources. Mining operations would provide local jobs, county tax revenue, federal coal royalty revenue, and regional energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the mines would lead to a decline in the groundwater table. Flooding of the mines subsequent to closure would release pollutants, including acids, into the groundwater table and these would eventually reach surface flows. Mine voids would result in a high risk of subsidence, which would significantly alter the area topography. Geologic and paleontologic resources would be destroyed, and archaeological sites could be disturbed or destroyed. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for sensitive species, would be destroyed at the mining sites and rock waste disposal facilities, and leaching from disposal facilities would release pollutants into surface water flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040310, 607 pages and maps, July 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Acids
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Coal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Soils
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Daniel Boone National Forest
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36443319?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAY+MOUNTAIN+COAL+LEASE+LAND+USE+ANALYSIS%2C+REDBIRD+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+DANIEL+BOONE+NATINOAL+FOREST%2C+LESLIE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=GRAY+MOUNTAIN+COAL+LEASE+LAND+USE+ANALYSIS%2C+REDBIRD+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+DANIEL+BOONE+NATINOAL+FOREST%2C+LESLIE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Big Creek, Kentucky; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAY MOUNTAIN COAL LEASE LAND USE ANALYSIS, REDBIRD RANGER DISTRICT, DANIEL BOONE NATINOAL FOREST, LESLIE COUNTY, KENTUCKY. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - GRAY MOUNTAIN COAL LEASE LAND USE ANALYSIS, REDBIRD RANGER DISTRICT, DANIEL BOONE NATINOAL FOREST, LESLIE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 36372854; 10861-040310_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of coal deposits in three National Forest System tracts (3094Az), 3094Bb, and 3094Be) in the Gray Mountain area f the Redbird Ranger District, Daniel Boone National Forest, Leslie County, Kentucky is proposed. The leases would be granted to the Bledsoe Coal Leasing Company. The three tracts encompass 1,210.44 acres of federal coal reserves in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. More specifically, the tracts are located on and around Gray Mountain between the Beech Fork and Greasy Creek drainages in southern Leslie County. The Beech Fork coal mining complex is located adjacent to the three Forest Service tracts and is an existing permitted facility; it is not part of the considerations in this final EIS. The applicant would use underground mining methods to extract the coal reserves. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to topography and geologic resources, soils, vegetation, wildlife and fish habitat, special status species, surface and groundwater resources, air quality, visual resources, noise, socioeconomic resources, land use, transportation, recreation, and cultural, historic, and paleontological resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, approximately 2.8 million tons of federal coal reserves would be removed over the next 10 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mining of the lease tracts would assist in addressing the national need for coal resources. Mining operations would provide local jobs, county tax revenue, federal coal royalty revenue, and regional energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the mines would lead to a decline in the groundwater table. Flooding of the mines subsequent to closure would release pollutants, including acids, into the groundwater table and these would eventually reach surface flows. Mine voids would result in a high risk of subsidence, which would significantly alter the area topography. Geologic and paleontologic resources would be destroyed, and archaeological sites could be disturbed or destroyed. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for sensitive species, would be destroyed at the mining sites and rock waste disposal facilities, and leaching from disposal facilities would release pollutants into surface water flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040310, 607 pages and maps, July 2, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Acids
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Coal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Soils
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Daniel Boone National Forest
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372854?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAY+MOUNTAIN+COAL+LEASE+LAND+USE+ANALYSIS%2C+REDBIRD+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+DANIEL+BOONE+NATINOAL+FOREST%2C+LESLIE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=GRAY+MOUNTAIN+COAL+LEASE+LAND+USE+ANALYSIS%2C+REDBIRD+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+DANIEL+BOONE+NATINOAL+FOREST%2C+LESLIE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Big Creek, Kentucky; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COB ENERGY FACILITY, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - COB ENERGY FACILITY, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36362486; 10858-040307_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 1,160-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined-cycle electric generating plant near the city of Bonanza in Klamath County, Oregon are proposed. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will grant the interconnection it will help to provide an adequate and reliable power supply for the region consistent with BPA's environmental, social, and economic responsibilities. BPA intends to act consistently with its Open Access Transmission Tariff in considering the interconnection request. The energy facility could be constructed in one or two phases. If it were constructed in one phase, it would consist of two blocks of a two-on-one configuration in combined-cycle operation. A block would consist of two General Electric model 7 FA (or equivalent) combustion turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators, and one steam turbine generator. The nominal generating capacity at average annual conditions would be 1,160 MW. The heat rate on a higher heating value basis would be approximately 7,391 British thermal units per kilowatt-hour (Btu /kWh) when supplemental duct firing was used and 6,842 Btu/kWh without supplemental duct firing. It the energy facility were constructed in two phases, each phase would consist of one combined-cycle operation consisting of a single block of a two-on-one configuration. Each phase would have a nominal generating capacity of 580 MW under average annual conditions. The base load capacity would be approximately 450 MW and supplemental duct firing would add up to 130 MW under average annual conditions for each 580-MW phase. For the first 580-MW phase, the heat rate on a higher heating value would be approximately 7,,391 Btu/kWh when supplemental duct firing was used and 6,842 Btu/kWh without supplemental duct firing. Electric power from the generating facility would enter the regional grid at BPA's Captain Jack Substation via a proposed 7.2-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line; the line would cross federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, which must decide whether to grant the necessary 44-acre rights-of-way. Additional facilities would include a new 4.1-mile natural gas pipeline to deliver fuel to the facility site and a water supply well system consisting of three wells and a 2.8-mile water supply pipeline. Processed wastewater would be managed via one of the following three alternatives: 1) beneficial use of water for a 31-acre irrigated pasture; 2) dissipation via a 20-acre, onsite lined evaporation pond; or 3) temporary onsite storage followed by hauling to a wastewater treatment plant for offsite disposal. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed generating plant would provide electrical consumers in the Pacific Northwest and western states with increased power generation capacity to meet increasing demand and high-voltage transmission service to deliver the necessary electrical power. The project would restore approximately 236 acres of fallow agricultural land, currently consisting of heavily grazed, degraded juniper woodland. Construction activities would employ an average of 352 workers for approximately 23 months; operation of the facility would employ 30 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the energy facility would result in displacement of 108.7 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat over the 30-year project life; 128.5 acres would be displaced if the evaporation pond alternative were selected for wastewater disposal. Approximately 13.1 acres of nonirrigated, high-value agricultural soil would be lost. Approximately 256.7 acres of wildlife habitat would suffer temporary disturbance. Construction and operation of the facility could affect bald eagle habitat. Plant stacks and transmission towers could mar visual aesthetics in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0128D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040307, Final EIS--221 pages and maps, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, July 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0343
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362486?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COB+ENERGY+FACILITY%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COB+ENERGY+FACILITY%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COB ENERGY FACILITY, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - COB ENERGY FACILITY, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36359824; 10858-040307_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 1,160-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined-cycle electric generating plant near the city of Bonanza in Klamath County, Oregon are proposed. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will grant the interconnection it will help to provide an adequate and reliable power supply for the region consistent with BPA's environmental, social, and economic responsibilities. BPA intends to act consistently with its Open Access Transmission Tariff in considering the interconnection request. The energy facility could be constructed in one or two phases. If it were constructed in one phase, it would consist of two blocks of a two-on-one configuration in combined-cycle operation. A block would consist of two General Electric model 7 FA (or equivalent) combustion turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators, and one steam turbine generator. The nominal generating capacity at average annual conditions would be 1,160 MW. The heat rate on a higher heating value basis would be approximately 7,391 British thermal units per kilowatt-hour (Btu /kWh) when supplemental duct firing was used and 6,842 Btu/kWh without supplemental duct firing. It the energy facility were constructed in two phases, each phase would consist of one combined-cycle operation consisting of a single block of a two-on-one configuration. Each phase would have a nominal generating capacity of 580 MW under average annual conditions. The base load capacity would be approximately 450 MW and supplemental duct firing would add up to 130 MW under average annual conditions for each 580-MW phase. For the first 580-MW phase, the heat rate on a higher heating value would be approximately 7,,391 Btu/kWh when supplemental duct firing was used and 6,842 Btu/kWh without supplemental duct firing. Electric power from the generating facility would enter the regional grid at BPA's Captain Jack Substation via a proposed 7.2-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line; the line would cross federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, which must decide whether to grant the necessary 44-acre rights-of-way. Additional facilities would include a new 4.1-mile natural gas pipeline to deliver fuel to the facility site and a water supply well system consisting of three wells and a 2.8-mile water supply pipeline. Processed wastewater would be managed via one of the following three alternatives: 1) beneficial use of water for a 31-acre irrigated pasture; 2) dissipation via a 20-acre, onsite lined evaporation pond; or 3) temporary onsite storage followed by hauling to a wastewater treatment plant for offsite disposal. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed generating plant would provide electrical consumers in the Pacific Northwest and western states with increased power generation capacity to meet increasing demand and high-voltage transmission service to deliver the necessary electrical power. The project would restore approximately 236 acres of fallow agricultural land, currently consisting of heavily grazed, degraded juniper woodland. Construction activities would employ an average of 352 workers for approximately 23 months; operation of the facility would employ 30 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the energy facility would result in displacement of 108.7 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat over the 30-year project life; 128.5 acres would be displaced if the evaporation pond alternative were selected for wastewater disposal. Approximately 13.1 acres of nonirrigated, high-value agricultural soil would be lost. Approximately 256.7 acres of wildlife habitat would suffer temporary disturbance. Construction and operation of the facility could affect bald eagle habitat. Plant stacks and transmission towers could mar visual aesthetics in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0128D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040307, Final EIS--221 pages and maps, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, July 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0343
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359824?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COB+ENERGY+FACILITY%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COB+ENERGY+FACILITY%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COB ENERGY FACILITY, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 16347515; 10858
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 1,160-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined-cycle electric generating plant near the city of Bonanza in Klamath County, Oregon are proposed. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will grant the interconnection it will help to provide an adequate and reliable power supply for the region consistent with BPA's environmental, social, and economic responsibilities. BPA intends to act consistently with its Open Access Transmission Tariff in considering the interconnection request. The energy facility could be constructed in one or two phases. If it were constructed in one phase, it would consist of two blocks of a two-on-one configuration in combined-cycle operation. A block would consist of two General Electric model 7 FA (or equivalent) combustion turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators, and one steam turbine generator. The nominal generating capacity at average annual conditions would be 1,160 MW. The heat rate on a higher heating value basis would be approximately 7,391 British thermal units per kilowatt-hour (Btu /kWh) when supplemental duct firing was used and 6,842 Btu/kWh without supplemental duct firing. It the energy facility were constructed in two phases, each phase would consist of one combined-cycle operation consisting of a single block of a two-on-one configuration. Each phase would have a nominal generating capacity of 580 MW under average annual conditions. The base load capacity would be approximately 450 MW and supplemental duct firing would add up to 130 MW under average annual conditions for each 580-MW phase. For the first 580-MW phase, the heat rate on a higher heating value would be approximately 7,,391 Btu/kWh when supplemental duct firing was used and 6,842 Btu/kWh without supplemental duct firing. Electric power from the generating facility would enter the regional grid at BPA's Captain Jack Substation via a proposed 7.2-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line; the line would cross federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, which must decide whether to grant the necessary 44-acre rights-of-way. Additional facilities would include a new 4.1-mile natural gas pipeline to deliver fuel to the facility site and a water supply well system consisting of three wells and a 2.8-mile water supply pipeline. Processed wastewater would be managed via one of the following three alternatives: 1) beneficial use of water for a 31-acre irrigated pasture; 2) dissipation via a 20-acre, onsite lined evaporation pond; or 3) temporary onsite storage followed by hauling to a wastewater treatment plant for offsite disposal. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed generating plant would provide electrical consumers in the Pacific Northwest and western states with increased power generation capacity to meet increasing demand and high-voltage transmission service to deliver the necessary electrical power. The project would restore approximately 236 acres of fallow agricultural land, currently consisting of heavily grazed, degraded juniper woodland. Construction activities would employ an average of 352 workers for approximately 23 months; operation of the facility would employ 30 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the energy facility would result in displacement of 108.7 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat over the 30-year project life; 128.5 acres would be displaced if the evaporation pond alternative were selected for wastewater disposal. Approximately 13.1 acres of nonirrigated, high-value agricultural soil would be lost. Approximately 256.7 acres of wildlife habitat would suffer temporary disturbance. Construction and operation of the facility could affect bald eagle habitat. Plant stacks and transmission towers could mar visual aesthetics in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0128D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040307, Final EIS--221 pages and maps, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, July 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0343
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16347515?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COB+ENERGY+FACILITY%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COB+ENERGY+FACILITY%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COMMERCIAL SERVICES PLAN [FOR] GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, A PORTION OF WATERTON-GLACER INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK, FLATHEAD AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36435324; 10854
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to manage commercial services in Glacier National Park, a portion of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, in Flathead and Glacier counties, Montana is proposed. The park has an exceptionally long geological setting and offers spectacular scenery and rare primitive wilderness experiences. The park offers one of the most ecologically intact temperate areas remaining in the continental US. The 1999 general management plan was based on an overall guiding philosophy of managing most of the park for its wild character and for the integrity of the Glacier's unique natural heritage. The commercial services plan would provide guidance for the levels and types of commercial visitor services and site and facility improvements that are necessary and appropriate for the foreseeable future in the developed areas of the park. Areas affected would include the Apgar, Two Medicine, Lake McDonald, Rising Sun, Many Glacier and Swiftcurrent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to employee housing, visitor/employee separation, vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation, floodplain resources, sensitive natural resources, future uses of the Granite Park Chalet, commercial group hikes, organized bicycle tour group size and frequency, other support services for concession operations, modernization or expansion of developments, the length of the construction and operation seasons, and health, safety, and accessibility issues. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would maintain the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, which adopts portions of alternatives B and C, would provide for continued operation of the chalet a hiker shelter and accommodation of all related all current services; replacement and expansion of restrooms and provision of potable water at the chalet; cultural and natural history hiking as well as recreational hiking in all areas of the park excepting the North Fork management area; selected boat tours for the Grinnel Lake, Grinnel Glacier, and St. Mary Falls trails; guided underwater diving tours at McDonald, Sherburne, Josephine, Swiftcurrent, Two Medicine, Pray, Lower Two Medicine, and St. Mary lakes; firewood sales in camp stores and at selected campgrounds; public shower facilities at or near campgrounds; guided interpretive vehicle tours; horseback riding, horse packing, and horse boarding services; guided bicycle tours; commercial step-on guide services; and modification and/or expansion of facilities in the Lake McDonald, Rising Sun, Two Medicine, Many Glacier, and Swiftcurrent developed areas. Cooperation with park neighbors would be emphasized in managing use and resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Traditional visitor services and facilities would be retained. Visitors would be able to enjoy the park from many vantage points, while visitor use would be managed to preserve and protect natural resources. Extension of operating seasons for concession facilities would increase visitor outlays and, thereby, enhance the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and visitor activities would affect water quality, air quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, floodplains, natural solitude experiences, historic sites, and views of scenic areas. Energy consumption would increase. Landowners within the park could be affected by increased visitation and changes in visitation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0422D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040303, 637 pages, June 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-24
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Employment
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Safety
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - British Columbia
KW  - Canada
KW  - Glacier National Park
KW  - Montana
KW  - Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435324?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMMERCIAL+SERVICES+PLAN++GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+A+PORTION+OF+WATERTON-GLACER+INTERNATIONAL+PEACE+PARK%2C+FLATHEAD+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=COMMERCIAL+SERVICES+PLAN++GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+A+PORTION+OF+WATERTON-GLACER+INTERNATIONAL+PEACE+PARK%2C+FLATHEAD+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, West Glacier, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COMMERCIAL SERVICES PLAN [FOR] GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, A PORTION OF WATERTON-GLACER INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK, FLATHEAD AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - COMMERCIAL SERVICES PLAN [FOR] GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, A PORTION OF WATERTON-GLACER INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK, FLATHEAD AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36372613; 10854-040303_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to manage commercial services in Glacier National Park, a portion of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, in Flathead and Glacier counties, Montana is proposed. The park has an exceptionally long geological setting and offers spectacular scenery and rare primitive wilderness experiences. The park offers one of the most ecologically intact temperate areas remaining in the continental US. The 1999 general management plan was based on an overall guiding philosophy of managing most of the park for its wild character and for the integrity of the Glacier's unique natural heritage. The commercial services plan would provide guidance for the levels and types of commercial visitor services and site and facility improvements that are necessary and appropriate for the foreseeable future in the developed areas of the park. Areas affected would include the Apgar, Two Medicine, Lake McDonald, Rising Sun, Many Glacier and Swiftcurrent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to employee housing, visitor/employee separation, vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation, floodplain resources, sensitive natural resources, future uses of the Granite Park Chalet, commercial group hikes, organized bicycle tour group size and frequency, other support services for concession operations, modernization or expansion of developments, the length of the construction and operation seasons, and health, safety, and accessibility issues. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would maintain the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, which adopts portions of alternatives B and C, would provide for continued operation of the chalet a hiker shelter and accommodation of all related all current services; replacement and expansion of restrooms and provision of potable water at the chalet; cultural and natural history hiking as well as recreational hiking in all areas of the park excepting the North Fork management area; selected boat tours for the Grinnel Lake, Grinnel Glacier, and St. Mary Falls trails; guided underwater diving tours at McDonald, Sherburne, Josephine, Swiftcurrent, Two Medicine, Pray, Lower Two Medicine, and St. Mary lakes; firewood sales in camp stores and at selected campgrounds; public shower facilities at or near campgrounds; guided interpretive vehicle tours; horseback riding, horse packing, and horse boarding services; guided bicycle tours; commercial step-on guide services; and modification and/or expansion of facilities in the Lake McDonald, Rising Sun, Two Medicine, Many Glacier, and Swiftcurrent developed areas. Cooperation with park neighbors would be emphasized in managing use and resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Traditional visitor services and facilities would be retained. Visitors would be able to enjoy the park from many vantage points, while visitor use would be managed to preserve and protect natural resources. Extension of operating seasons for concession facilities would increase visitor outlays and, thereby, enhance the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and visitor activities would affect water quality, air quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, floodplains, natural solitude experiences, historic sites, and views of scenic areas. Energy consumption would increase. Landowners within the park could be affected by increased visitation and changes in visitation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0422D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040303, 637 pages, June 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-24
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Employment
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Safety
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - British Columbia
KW  - Canada
KW  - Glacier National Park
KW  - Montana
KW  - Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372613?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMMERCIAL+SERVICES+PLAN++GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+A+PORTION+OF+WATERTON-GLACER+INTERNATIONAL+PEACE+PARK%2C+FLATHEAD+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=COMMERCIAL+SERVICES+PLAN++GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+A+PORTION+OF+WATERTON-GLACER+INTERNATIONAL+PEACE+PARK%2C+FLATHEAD+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, West Glacier, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36378439; 10844-040292_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378439?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36378305; 10844-040292_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378305?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36368900; 10844-040292_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368900?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36365429; 10844-040292_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365429?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000).
AN  - 36369567; 10834-040282_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The extension of gold mining operations at the Pipeline Mine within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County, Nevada is proposed. The project area lies 30 miles southeast of Battle Mountain. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of February 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses the applicant's proposal, a No Action Alternative, and two additional alternative. Under the applicant's proposed action, Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (GCM) would develop the South Pipeline ore deposit and construct associated facilities to continue to extract gold from the mined ore within the project area. GCM would conduct certain activities at the approved Cortez Facilities without substantial modification to those facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal would include a right-of-way (ROW)application for construction of a water pipeline and plans to modify a portion of the Gold Acres Facilities. The principal components of the proposed action would include: expansion of the Pipeline open pit, which would eventually include the South Pipeline open pit; a new heap leach facility; expansion of the existing Pipeline waste rock dump and tailings facility; extension of process solution pipelines from the South Pipeline leach facility to other process facilities within the project area; new ore and sub-grade ore and growth media stockpiles; increasing of the Pipeline mill throughput; development of new groundwater extraction wells; rerouting of a portion of Cortez Mine Road; abandonment of a portion of the ROW for the Gold Acres haul road; establishment of ROW for a pipeline to deliver water to Dean Ranch; and delivery of up to 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the adjacent Dean Ranch via the ROW for consumption on private land. The rate of groundwater pumping and disposal would be no greater than 34,500 gpm. The applicant's proposal would not alter CGM's current average mining rate of 150,000 tons per day (tpd); the maximum rate would be 250,000 tpd. An estimated 150 million tons of ore would be mined from the South Pipeline open pit, resulting in 450 million tons of waste rock. Most of the waste rock (250 million tons) would be hauled to a mined-out portion of the South Pipeline open pit. The project would also include dewatering and reclamation provisions. The mine life would extend eight years, with an additional two years for further ore processing and site closure. The schedule could change if reserves were found to be greater than expected or economic conditions change. A Complete Backfill Alternative, also under consideration, would dispose of waste rock into the Pipeline/South Pipeline and Gap open pits Under the No Backfill Alternative, the 590 million tons of waste rock that would be mined under the proposed action would be disposed in the existing Pipeline/South Pipeline waste rock dump and on a new dump adjacent to the Gap open pit. The second and third action alternative would involve alternation of the mining sequence and backfilling provisions. The applicant's proposal has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would extend the operational life of CGM's mining and processing operations by eight years and continue to employ 450 to 500 workers during that period. Approximately 4.58 million ounces of gold and minor amounts of silver would be generated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would disturb 4,450 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed, resulting in an overall disturbed area of up to 7,676 acres of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Implementation of the Complete Backfill Alternative would disturb 3,841 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed. Mining and related activities would result in restriction of future mineral resource extraction due to facility siting, dewatering of streams and springs and resultant loss of vegetation including special status species, degradation of groundwater quality, introduction of noxious weeds to disturbed areas, Blasting activities would result in significant noise emissions, and accidental spills of hazardous materials would pose a hazard to human populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0336D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 00-0170F, Volume 24, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040282, 381 pages and maps, June 14, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: NVN067575(01-1A)
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369567?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 14, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000).
AN  - 16350307; 10834
AB  - PURPOSE: The extension of gold mining operations at the Pipeline Mine within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County, Nevada is proposed. The project area lies 30 miles southeast of Battle Mountain. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of February 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses the applicant's proposal, a No Action Alternative, and two additional alternative. Under the applicant's proposed action, Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (GCM) would develop the South Pipeline ore deposit and construct associated facilities to continue to extract gold from the mined ore within the project area. GCM would conduct certain activities at the approved Cortez Facilities without substantial modification to those facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal would include a right-of-way (ROW)application for construction of a water pipeline and plans to modify a portion of the Gold Acres Facilities. The principal components of the proposed action would include: expansion of the Pipeline open pit, which would eventually include the South Pipeline open pit; a new heap leach facility; expansion of the existing Pipeline waste rock dump and tailings facility; extension of process solution pipelines from the South Pipeline leach facility to other process facilities within the project area; new ore and sub-grade ore and growth media stockpiles; increasing of the Pipeline mill throughput; development of new groundwater extraction wells; rerouting of a portion of Cortez Mine Road; abandonment of a portion of the ROW for the Gold Acres haul road; establishment of ROW for a pipeline to deliver water to Dean Ranch; and delivery of up to 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the adjacent Dean Ranch via the ROW for consumption on private land. The rate of groundwater pumping and disposal would be no greater than 34,500 gpm. The applicant's proposal would not alter CGM's current average mining rate of 150,000 tons per day (tpd); the maximum rate would be 250,000 tpd. An estimated 150 million tons of ore would be mined from the South Pipeline open pit, resulting in 450 million tons of waste rock. Most of the waste rock (250 million tons) would be hauled to a mined-out portion of the South Pipeline open pit. The project would also include dewatering and reclamation provisions. The mine life would extend eight years, with an additional two years for further ore processing and site closure. The schedule could change if reserves were found to be greater than expected or economic conditions change. A Complete Backfill Alternative, also under consideration, would dispose of waste rock into the Pipeline/South Pipeline and Gap open pits Under the No Backfill Alternative, the 590 million tons of waste rock that would be mined under the proposed action would be disposed in the existing Pipeline/South Pipeline waste rock dump and on a new dump adjacent to the Gap open pit. The second and third action alternative would involve alternation of the mining sequence and backfilling provisions. The applicant's proposal has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would extend the operational life of CGM's mining and processing operations by eight years and continue to employ 450 to 500 workers during that period. Approximately 4.58 million ounces of gold and minor amounts of silver would be generated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would disturb 4,450 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed, resulting in an overall disturbed area of up to 7,676 acres of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Implementation of the Complete Backfill Alternative would disturb 3,841 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed. Mining and related activities would result in restriction of future mineral resource extraction due to facility siting, dewatering of streams and springs and resultant loss of vegetation including special status species, degradation of groundwater quality, introduction of noxious weeds to disturbed areas, Blasting activities would result in significant noise emissions, and accidental spills of hazardous materials would pose a hazard to human populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0336D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 00-0170F, Volume 24, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040282, 381 pages and maps, June 14, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: NVN067575(01-1A)
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16350307?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 14, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 36441474; 10827
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the reserve. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 213,00 acres available to leasing to provide protection for wildlife and subsistence uses while providing access to new oil and gas resources on approximately 487,000 acres. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas, including Special Areas; these Special Areas include river areas, deep-water lakes, Teshekpuk Lake, goose molting area, Teshekpuk Lake caribou habitat area, coastal area, the Colville River Special Area, and Pik Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Integrated Activity Plan, see 97-0403D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0188F, Volume 22, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040275, Volume I--1,201 pages and maps, Volume II--222 pages and maps, CD-ROM, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-98/016+3130+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441474?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMENDMENT+TO+THE+NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=AMENDMENT+TO+THE+NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.
AN  - 36378260; 10829-040277_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado River (LCR), which traverses Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the issuance of an incidental take permit based on the program plan are proposed. The planning area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the international boundary with Mexico. The conservation plan would be habitat-based and intended to promote the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and reduce the possibility that other selected species may become listed along the LCR. Federal and non-federal actions related to ongoing and future operations of the LCR water delivery and power systems are affecting listed species and critical habitat and may contribute to future listing of additional species. If adopted, this programmatic EIS will serve as the basis for future project-specific regulatory environmental compliance documents. Four alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1), which is also the environmentally preferred alternative, would involve implementing the conservation plan and issuing the permit. Species to be covered include those that meet one of the following selection criteria: 1) species that are listed or that are proposed candidates for listing under the ESA or species that are protected under Arizona, California, or Nevada law that could be affected by covered activities and would require take authorization; or 2) species that could become listed during the term of the conservation plan under the ESA or species that could become protected under state law that could be affected by covered activities and could require future take authorization. The conservation program would include a full range of conservation measures for all covered species. Based on application of the selection criteria, 27 of the species considered are proposed for coverage under the ESA permit. The plan would also result in the consideration of four "evaluation species", which are species that could become listed in future years. The program would include research studies and pilot management studies for the evaluation species to determine their status in the planning area and to determine appropriate conservation measures. The program would include maintenance and creation of habitat, avoidance or minimization of impacts to convered species and their habitat, population enhancement measures, and monitoring and research measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the conservation plan would provide the mechanism necessary to meet the needs of the federal and non-federal participants for incidental take authorization under the ESA for ongoing and future power and water developments on the LCR. As a result, needed future development would take place without undue damage to federally protected species or their habitat as well as to other species and their habitat. Species conservation actions could also reduce impacts on agricultural resources, land use compatibility, environmental justice, and other social and economic resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities, as well as wildlife research and management activities, allowed under the incidental take permit could cause damage to vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat supporting the listed species. Limitations on project development and operations would negatively affect the efficient economic exploitation of resources within the LCR area somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040277, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--241 pages and maps, Biological Assessment--267 pages and maps, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-32
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378260?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, bolder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371430; 10830-040278_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tailwater recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short- and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tailwater recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040278, 521 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-33
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371430?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371304; 10830-040278_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tailwater recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short- and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tailwater recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040278, 521 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-33
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371304?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371070; 10830-040278_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tailwater recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short- and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tailwater recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040278, 521 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-33
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.
AN  - 36370027; 10829-040277_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado River (LCR), which traverses Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the issuance of an incidental take permit based on the program plan are proposed. The planning area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the international boundary with Mexico. The conservation plan would be habitat-based and intended to promote the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and reduce the possibility that other selected species may become listed along the LCR. Federal and non-federal actions related to ongoing and future operations of the LCR water delivery and power systems are affecting listed species and critical habitat and may contribute to future listing of additional species. If adopted, this programmatic EIS will serve as the basis for future project-specific regulatory environmental compliance documents. Four alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1), which is also the environmentally preferred alternative, would involve implementing the conservation plan and issuing the permit. Species to be covered include those that meet one of the following selection criteria: 1) species that are listed or that are proposed candidates for listing under the ESA or species that are protected under Arizona, California, or Nevada law that could be affected by covered activities and would require take authorization; or 2) species that could become listed during the term of the conservation plan under the ESA or species that could become protected under state law that could be affected by covered activities and could require future take authorization. The conservation program would include a full range of conservation measures for all covered species. Based on application of the selection criteria, 27 of the species considered are proposed for coverage under the ESA permit. The plan would also result in the consideration of four "evaluation species", which are species that could become listed in future years. The program would include research studies and pilot management studies for the evaluation species to determine their status in the planning area and to determine appropriate conservation measures. The program would include maintenance and creation of habitat, avoidance or minimization of impacts to convered species and their habitat, population enhancement measures, and monitoring and research measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the conservation plan would provide the mechanism necessary to meet the needs of the federal and non-federal participants for incidental take authorization under the ESA for ongoing and future power and water developments on the LCR. As a result, needed future development would take place without undue damage to federally protected species or their habitat as well as to other species and their habitat. Species conservation actions could also reduce impacts on agricultural resources, land use compatibility, environmental justice, and other social and economic resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities, as well as wildlife research and management activities, allowed under the incidental take permit could cause damage to vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat supporting the listed species. Limitations on project development and operations would negatively affect the efficient economic exploitation of resources within the LCR area somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040277, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--241 pages and maps, Biological Assessment--267 pages and maps, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-32
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370027?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, bolder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368986; 10830-040278_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tailwater recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short- and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tailwater recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040278, 521 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-33
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368986?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368932; 10830-040278_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tailwater recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short- and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tailwater recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040278, 521 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-33
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368932?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 36368833; 10827-040275_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the reserve. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 213,00 acres available to leasing to provide protection for wildlife and subsistence uses while providing access to new oil and gas resources on approximately 487,000 acres. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas, including Special Areas; these Special Areas include river areas, deep-water lakes, Teshekpuk Lake, goose molting area, Teshekpuk Lake caribou habitat area, coastal area, the Colville River Special Area, and Pik Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Integrated Activity Plan, see 97-0403D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0188F, Volume 22, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040275, Volume I--1,201 pages and maps, Volume II--222 pages and maps, CD-ROM, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-98/016+3130+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368833?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMENDMENT+TO+THE+NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=AMENDMENT+TO+THE+NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.
AN  - 36368452; 11317-040579_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado River (LCR), which traverses Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the issuance of an incidental take permit based on the program plan are proposed. The entire Colorado Basin is spread across five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and provides the water supply for 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of irrigated agricultural land in the US and Mexico. A significant amount of the water demand, particularly for municipal use, is physically located outside the basin and is served by transbasin diversions and conveyances. The rivers within the basin generate 12 billion kilowatt-hours of energy annually. The Colorado River Compact of 1992 divided the basin into upper and lower divisions. The LCR planning area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the international boundary with Mexico. The conservation plan would be habitat-based and intended to promote the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and reduce the possibility that other selected species may become listed along the LCR. Federal and non-federal actions related to ongoing and future operations of the LCR water delivery and power systems are affecting listed species and critical habitat and may contribute to future listing of additional species. If adopted, his programmatic EIS will serve as the basis for future project-specific regulatory environmental compliance documents. Four Alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1), which is also the environmentally preferred alternative, would involve implementing the conservation plan and issuing the permit. Species to be covered include those that meet one of the following selection criteria: 1) species that are listed or that are proposed candidates for listing under the ESA or species that are protected under Arizona, California, or Nevada law that could be affected by covered activities and would require take authorization; or 2) species that could become listed during the term of the conservation plan under the ESA or species that could become protected under state law that could be affected by covered activities and could require future take authorization. The conservation program would include a full range of conservation measures for all covered species. Based on application of the selection criteria, 27 of the species considered are proposed for coverage under the ESA permit. The plan would also result in the consideration of four "evaluation species", which are species that could become listed in future years. The program would include research studies and pilot management studies for the evaluation species to determine their status in the planning area and to determine appropriate conservation measures. The program would include maintenance and creation of habitat, avoidance or minimization of impacts to conserved species and their habitat, population enhancement measures, and monitoring and research measures. Implementation costs begin at $56.1 million for the first five years of implementation, fluctuating, as following for the following periods: $137.8 million, $110.8 million, $99.9 million, $40.7 million, 37.5 million, $143 million, for implementation years 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30 and 31-50, respectively, for an overall 50-year total of $626.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the conservation plan would provide the mechanism necessary to meet the needs of the federal and non-federal participants for incidental take authorization under the ESA for ongoing and future power and water developments on the LCR. As a result, needed future development would take place without undue damage to federally protected species or their habitat as will as to other species and their habitat. Species conservation actions could also reduce impacts on agricultural resources, land use compatibility, environmental justice, and other social and economic resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities, as well as wildlife research and management activities, allowed under the incidental take permit could cause damage to vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat supporting the listed species. Limitations on project development and operations would negatively affect the efficient economic exploitation of resources within the LCR area somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Compact of 1992 and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0277D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040579, Habitat Conservation Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Colorado River Compact of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368452?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2005-2014, SACRAMENTO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368387; 10830-040278_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water exchange program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is proposed with respect to Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River of southern California for the period extending from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2014. The program would consist of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water (a maximum of 80,000 acre-feet of developed water from conservation measures, including tailwater recovery and groundwater pumping, and a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet from temporary land fallowing) annually from the Exchange Contractors to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, to the Bureau of Reclamation for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas (wildlife refuges), and to Reclamation and/or the California Department of Water Resources for use by the CALFED Environmental Water Account as replacement water for CVP contractors south of the Delta. Reclamation would approve and/or execute short- and/or long-term water transfer agreements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, would provide for the development of up to 80,000 acre-feet, 50,000 acre-feet, and 130,000 acre-feet of water during noncritical years. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water transfer would allow the development of supplemental water supplies from willing sellers in the Exchange Contractors service area through water conservation/tailwater recovery, groundwater pumping, and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities consistent with district policies. In addition, the transfer would provide water supplies to refuges consistent with water quantities necessary for habitat development, assist CVP agricultural service contractors in obtaining additional CVP water for production of agricultural crops or livestock to offset water supply shortages when full contract deliveries could not otherwise be made, and provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District with short-term water supplies to support agriculture and/or municipal and industrial uses in Santa Clara County when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives could impair operation the New Melones Reservoir and the delta with respect to water resources development, the delivery of water to refuges, agricultural operations, and out-of-basin users. Water delivery from Vernalis to refuges and out-of-basin users could also be impaired. In combination with other developments in the area, the water transfers could affect land use and recreational use in the basin. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040278, 521 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-33
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368387?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2005-2014%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.
AN  - 36367489; 11317-040579_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado River (LCR), which traverses Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the issuance of an incidental take permit based on the program plan are proposed. The entire Colorado Basin is spread across five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and provides the water supply for 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of irrigated agricultural land in the US and Mexico. A significant amount of the water demand, particularly for municipal use, is physically located outside the basin and is served by transbasin diversions and conveyances. The rivers within the basin generate 12 billion kilowatt-hours of energy annually. The Colorado River Compact of 1992 divided the basin into upper and lower divisions. The LCR planning area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the international boundary with Mexico. The conservation plan would be habitat-based and intended to promote the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and reduce the possibility that other selected species may become listed along the LCR. Federal and non-federal actions related to ongoing and future operations of the LCR water delivery and power systems are affecting listed species and critical habitat and may contribute to future listing of additional species. If adopted, his programmatic EIS will serve as the basis for future project-specific regulatory environmental compliance documents. Four Alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1), which is also the environmentally preferred alternative, would involve implementing the conservation plan and issuing the permit. Species to be covered include those that meet one of the following selection criteria: 1) species that are listed or that are proposed candidates for listing under the ESA or species that are protected under Arizona, California, or Nevada law that could be affected by covered activities and would require take authorization; or 2) species that could become listed during the term of the conservation plan under the ESA or species that could become protected under state law that could be affected by covered activities and could require future take authorization. The conservation program would include a full range of conservation measures for all covered species. Based on application of the selection criteria, 27 of the species considered are proposed for coverage under the ESA permit. The plan would also result in the consideration of four "evaluation species", which are species that could become listed in future years. The program would include research studies and pilot management studies for the evaluation species to determine their status in the planning area and to determine appropriate conservation measures. The program would include maintenance and creation of habitat, avoidance or minimization of impacts to conserved species and their habitat, population enhancement measures, and monitoring and research measures. Implementation costs begin at $56.1 million for the first five years of implementation, fluctuating, as following for the following periods: $137.8 million, $110.8 million, $99.9 million, $40.7 million, 37.5 million, $143 million, for implementation years 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30 and 31-50, respectively, for an overall 50-year total of $626.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the conservation plan would provide the mechanism necessary to meet the needs of the federal and non-federal participants for incidental take authorization under the ESA for ongoing and future power and water developments on the LCR. As a result, needed future development would take place without undue damage to federally protected species or their habitat as will as to other species and their habitat. Species conservation actions could also reduce impacts on agricultural resources, land use compatibility, environmental justice, and other social and economic resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities, as well as wildlife research and management activities, allowed under the incidental take permit could cause damage to vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat supporting the listed species. Limitations on project development and operations would negatively affect the efficient economic exploitation of resources within the LCR area somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Compact of 1992 and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0277D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040579, Habitat Conservation Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Colorado River Compact of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367489?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.
AN  - 36364211; 11317-040579_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado River (LCR), which traverses Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the issuance of an incidental take permit based on the program plan are proposed. The entire Colorado Basin is spread across five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and provides the water supply for 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of irrigated agricultural land in the US and Mexico. A significant amount of the water demand, particularly for municipal use, is physically located outside the basin and is served by transbasin diversions and conveyances. The rivers within the basin generate 12 billion kilowatt-hours of energy annually. The Colorado River Compact of 1992 divided the basin into upper and lower divisions. The LCR planning area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the international boundary with Mexico. The conservation plan would be habitat-based and intended to promote the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and reduce the possibility that other selected species may become listed along the LCR. Federal and non-federal actions related to ongoing and future operations of the LCR water delivery and power systems are affecting listed species and critical habitat and may contribute to future listing of additional species. If adopted, his programmatic EIS will serve as the basis for future project-specific regulatory environmental compliance documents. Four Alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1), which is also the environmentally preferred alternative, would involve implementing the conservation plan and issuing the permit. Species to be covered include those that meet one of the following selection criteria: 1) species that are listed or that are proposed candidates for listing under the ESA or species that are protected under Arizona, California, or Nevada law that could be affected by covered activities and would require take authorization; or 2) species that could become listed during the term of the conservation plan under the ESA or species that could become protected under state law that could be affected by covered activities and could require future take authorization. The conservation program would include a full range of conservation measures for all covered species. Based on application of the selection criteria, 27 of the species considered are proposed for coverage under the ESA permit. The plan would also result in the consideration of four "evaluation species", which are species that could become listed in future years. The program would include research studies and pilot management studies for the evaluation species to determine their status in the planning area and to determine appropriate conservation measures. The program would include maintenance and creation of habitat, avoidance or minimization of impacts to conserved species and their habitat, population enhancement measures, and monitoring and research measures. Implementation costs begin at $56.1 million for the first five years of implementation, fluctuating, as following for the following periods: $137.8 million, $110.8 million, $99.9 million, $40.7 million, 37.5 million, $143 million, for implementation years 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30 and 31-50, respectively, for an overall 50-year total of $626.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the conservation plan would provide the mechanism necessary to meet the needs of the federal and non-federal participants for incidental take authorization under the ESA for ongoing and future power and water developments on the LCR. As a result, needed future development would take place without undue damage to federally protected species or their habitat as will as to other species and their habitat. Species conservation actions could also reduce impacts on agricultural resources, land use compatibility, environmental justice, and other social and economic resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities, as well as wildlife research and management activities, allowed under the incidental take permit could cause damage to vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat supporting the listed species. Limitations on project development and operations would negatively affect the efficient economic exploitation of resources within the LCR area somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Compact of 1992 and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0277D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040579, Habitat Conservation Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Colorado River Compact of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364211?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.
AN  - 16357774; 11317
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species conservation program for the Lower Colorado River (LCR), which traverses Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the issuance of an incidental take permit based on the program plan are proposed. The entire Colorado Basin is spread across five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and provides the water supply for 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of irrigated agricultural land in the US and Mexico. A significant amount of the water demand, particularly for municipal use, is physically located outside the basin and is served by transbasin diversions and conveyances. The rivers within the basin generate 12 billion kilowatt-hours of energy annually. The Colorado River Compact of 1992 divided the basin into upper and lower divisions. The LCR planning area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the international boundary with Mexico. The conservation plan would be habitat-based and intended to promote the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and reduce the possibility that other selected species may become listed along the LCR. Federal and non-federal actions related to ongoing and future operations of the LCR water delivery and power systems are affecting listed species and critical habitat and may contribute to future listing of additional species. If adopted, his programmatic EIS will serve as the basis for future project-specific regulatory environmental compliance documents. Four Alternatives, including the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1), which is also the environmentally preferred alternative, would involve implementing the conservation plan and issuing the permit. Species to be covered include those that meet one of the following selection criteria: 1) species that are listed or that are proposed candidates for listing under the ESA or species that are protected under Arizona, California, or Nevada law that could be affected by covered activities and would require take authorization; or 2) species that could become listed during the term of the conservation plan under the ESA or species that could become protected under state law that could be affected by covered activities and could require future take authorization. The conservation program would include a full range of conservation measures for all covered species. Based on application of the selection criteria, 27 of the species considered are proposed for coverage under the ESA permit. The plan would also result in the consideration of four "evaluation species", which are species that could become listed in future years. The program would include research studies and pilot management studies for the evaluation species to determine their status in the planning area and to determine appropriate conservation measures. The program would include maintenance and creation of habitat, avoidance or minimization of impacts to conserved species and their habitat, population enhancement measures, and monitoring and research measures. Implementation costs begin at $56.1 million for the first five years of implementation, fluctuating, as following for the following periods: $137.8 million, $110.8 million, $99.9 million, $40.7 million, 37.5 million, $143 million, for implementation years 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30 and 31-50, respectively, for an overall 50-year total of $626.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the conservation plan would provide the mechanism necessary to meet the needs of the federal and non-federal participants for incidental take authorization under the ESA for ongoing and future power and water developments on the LCR. As a result, needed future development would take place without undue damage to federally protected species or their habitat as will as to other species and their habitat. Species conservation actions could also reduce impacts on agricultural resources, land use compatibility, environmental justice, and other social and economic resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities, as well as wildlife research and management activities, allowed under the incidental take permit could cause damage to vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat supporting the listed species. Limitations on project development and operations would negatively affect the efficient economic exploitation of resources within the LCR area somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Compact of 1992 and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0277D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040579, Habitat Conservation Plan--441 pages, Biological Assessment--367 pages and maps, Volume IV--401 pages, Volume V--402 pages, June 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Colorado River Compact of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357774?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+MULTI-SPECIES+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHISKEYTOWN FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHISKEYTOWN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36435242; 10824
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the fire management plan for the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in California is proposed. The 42,500-acre recreation area straddles California Highway 299 eight miles west of Redding and includes the 3,000-acre Whiskeytown Lake. Wildland fire has occurred naturally throughout the park as an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and vegetation community structures within their natural range of variability. Mining, logging, and past fire suppression activities have lead to increases in fuel loads and changes in vegetation community structure and to an increasing potential for large high-intensity fires that would affect developed zones, the park's natural and cultural resources, and neighboring landowners and communities. Revisions to the current fire management plan are needed to meet public and firefighter safety, natural and cultural resource management, and wildland-urban interface objectives within the park. The current fire management program has been effective in fire suppression, but it is not able to restore large portions of the park to landscapes approximating the mid-1800s as required by the park's general management plan. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current fire management scheme, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives vary in the emphasis each places on the eight fire management goals developed by the park. Each action alternative contains an amendment to the park's general management plan to clarify that park headquarters may be rebuilt in its current location as part of the fire cache relocation to the Oak Bottom Campground. The preferred alternative (Alternative IV) would involve prescribed burning, via both pile and broadcast burns, on up to 2,200 acres, with individual burns ranging from 0.5 to 1,000 acres; possible use of wildland fire on up to 150 acres per year to reduce the unnatrual accumulation of forest fuels and to restore fire to the ecosystem on up to 2,300 acres; and use of mechanical treatments to reduce fuel levels and mimic effects of fire on structural patterns of wood vegetation in and around developed areas and shaded fuel breaks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would assist in restoring the Whiskeytown area's plant communities to reduce the risk of high severity wildland fire by decreasing forest stand density, reducing surface fuels, and attempting to restore fire as a natural disturbance process to the greatest extent feasible. Fish and wildlife habitat would benefit in the long-term, as would historic and archaeological resources. The visual appearance and other recreational aspects of the park would improve as the plan progressed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire and mechanical techniques of vegetation removal would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils and the associated sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Ecologically critical areas could be affected. Major adverse impacts could occur to historic and archaeological sites in the park in the short-term. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0328D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040272, 267 pages, June 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Safety
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435242?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHISKEYTOWN+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WHISKEYTOWN+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WHISKEYTOWN+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WHISKEYTOWN+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Whiskeytown, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHISKEYTOWN FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHISKEYTOWN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WHISKEYTOWN FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHISKEYTOWN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36370546; 10824-040272_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the fire management plan for the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in California is proposed. The 42,500-acre recreation area straddles California Highway 299 eight miles west of Redding and includes the 3,000-acre Whiskeytown Lake. Wildland fire has occurred naturally throughout the park as an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and vegetation community structures within their natural range of variability. Mining, logging, and past fire suppression activities have lead to increases in fuel loads and changes in vegetation community structure and to an increasing potential for large high-intensity fires that would affect developed zones, the park's natural and cultural resources, and neighboring landowners and communities. Revisions to the current fire management plan are needed to meet public and firefighter safety, natural and cultural resource management, and wildland-urban interface objectives within the park. The current fire management program has been effective in fire suppression, but it is not able to restore large portions of the park to landscapes approximating the mid-1800s as required by the park's general management plan. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current fire management scheme, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives vary in the emphasis each places on the eight fire management goals developed by the park. Each action alternative contains an amendment to the park's general management plan to clarify that park headquarters may be rebuilt in its current location as part of the fire cache relocation to the Oak Bottom Campground. The preferred alternative (Alternative IV) would involve prescribed burning, via both pile and broadcast burns, on up to 2,200 acres, with individual burns ranging from 0.5 to 1,000 acres; possible use of wildland fire on up to 150 acres per year to reduce the unnatrual accumulation of forest fuels and to restore fire to the ecosystem on up to 2,300 acres; and use of mechanical treatments to reduce fuel levels and mimic effects of fire on structural patterns of wood vegetation in and around developed areas and shaded fuel breaks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would assist in restoring the Whiskeytown area's plant communities to reduce the risk of high severity wildland fire by decreasing forest stand density, reducing surface fuels, and attempting to restore fire as a natural disturbance process to the greatest extent feasible. Fish and wildlife habitat would benefit in the long-term, as would historic and archaeological resources. The visual appearance and other recreational aspects of the park would improve as the plan progressed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire and mechanical techniques of vegetation removal would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils and the associated sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Ecologically critical areas could be affected. Major adverse impacts could occur to historic and archaeological sites in the park in the short-term. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0328D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040272, 267 pages, June 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Safety
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370546?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHISKEYTOWN+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WHISKEYTOWN+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WHISKEYTOWN+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WHISKEYTOWN+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Whiskeytown, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST HAY CREEK COAL LEASE APPLICATION (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW151634), CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36437232; 10818
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in a tract in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The applicant (Triton Coal Company, LLC) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management to mine the reserves in a tract located to the north and west and adjacent to Triton's Buckskin Mine. The application covers approximately 840 acres, located 12 miles north of the city of Gillette, and encompasses an estimated 145 million tons of in-place federal coal reserves. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, a competitive coal lease sale would be held and a maintenance lease would be issued to the successful bidder for the tract under consideration. Triton currently estimates that average annual coal production would amount to 25 million tons per year, and the life of the existing mine would be extended by approximately five years, for a total of 17 years. Under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, a competitive lease sale would be held and a maintenance lease for a tract that is larger than the configuration for which Triton has applied would be issued. Approximately 176 areas north of the existing mine and a small area in the southeast corner of the tract could be added in order to maximize economic recovery and bypass potentially recoverable federal coal. This alternative would add 25 million tons of unleased federal coal to the tract under consideration. Alternative 3 would also involve a competitive coal lease sale and issuance of a maintenance lease for a reconfigured mine tract. Under this alternative, 5.0 million tons of unleased federal coal southeast of the tract as applied for would be isolated and could be bypassed if it is not included in the tract. This alternative adds 31.13 acres to the tract under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Leasing of the coal would allow the removal of an important energy resource, contributing to the local and regional economy and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. Mining operations under the proposed action would employ 225 persons. Royalty and bonus payments for the coal mined would be collected by the federal government and split with the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The topography of the tract would be substantially altered during mining. Following reclamation, the average land surface elevation would be significantly lower. This could contribute to reduced habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity. The geologic structure of the site from the base of the coal to the land surface would be subject to considerable, long-term change. An average of 204 feet of overburden, 18 feet of interburden, and 106 feet of coal would be removed from the tract. Development of other minerals potentially present within the tract could not occur during mining. Conventional oil and gas wells would have to be plugged and abandoned during mining. Vegetation and soil, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be removed during mining, and 17.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, amendments (P.L. 94-377), and Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0254D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040266, 427 pages, June 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geology
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mines
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+HAY+CREEK+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW151634%29%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WEST+HAY+CREEK+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW151634%29%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36434927; 10820
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) of California is proposed. The SMMNRA is unusual within the National Parks System because the recreational area is located adjacent to one of the world's largest urban areas and is comprised of a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Wildland fire is a natural process in the southern California Mediterranean ecosystem, with fire tolerant or fire dependent adaptations characteristics of many species in the ecosystem. Fire history has shaped the plant communities of the area and is a major factor affecting their diversity, productivity, and distribution. Aggressive fire suppression during the 20th century successfully excluded fire from certain forest landscapes, allowing the buildup of forest litter and excessive vegetation and creating conditions for intense large-scale wildfires. During the same period, the area has experienced a dramatic increase in the human population living in wildland areas that are prone to wildfires. Consequently, the number of people and structures at risk from wildfire has dramatically increased as have the associated costs of fighting fires. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The environmentally preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize flexibility, utilizing all available fire management strategies identified to be appropriate for use in the Santa Monica Mountains. Alternative 2 would provide for mechanical fuel reduction, ecological prescribed fire, and strategic fuels treatment. Strategic zones would be identified using up-to-date analysis of vegetation types, fuel characteristics, fire spread models, and potential hazards to life property, and natural and cultural resources. Mechanical fuel reduction would be concentrated in the wildland-urban interface to protect homes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide for firefighter and public safety, reduce fire hazards in the SMMNRA with the most effective fire management strategies consistent with federal laws and policies, protect the park's ecological and cultural resources, identify resource conditions and hazards affecting private property within and around the park boundary that require specific fire management actions, and provide a decision framework for fire and resource managers to evaluate fire management proposals that provide protection for social values from wildfires or proposals that provide enhancement of resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exposure of bare soils to erosion, and degradation of air quality, but these impacts would be temporary. Mechanical removal of fuels would also destroy vegetation and denude soils temporarily. All intrusive management activities would degrade recreational enjoyment of the area until the affected tracts regenerated. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040268, 248 pages, June 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - National Parks
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434927?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Agoura Hills, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST HAY CREEK COAL LEASE APPLICATION (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW151634), CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WEST HAY CREEK COAL LEASE APPLICATION (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW151634), CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36368336; 10818-040266_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in a tract in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The applicant (Triton Coal Company, LLC) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management to mine the reserves in a tract located to the north and west and adjacent to Triton's Buckskin Mine. The application covers approximately 840 acres, located 12 miles north of the city of Gillette, and encompasses an estimated 145 million tons of in-place federal coal reserves. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, a competitive coal lease sale would be held and a maintenance lease would be issued to the successful bidder for the tract under consideration. Triton currently estimates that average annual coal production would amount to 25 million tons per year, and the life of the existing mine would be extended by approximately five years, for a total of 17 years. Under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, a competitive lease sale would be held and a maintenance lease for a tract that is larger than the configuration for which Triton has applied would be issued. Approximately 176 areas north of the existing mine and a small area in the southeast corner of the tract could be added in order to maximize economic recovery and bypass potentially recoverable federal coal. This alternative would add 25 million tons of unleased federal coal to the tract under consideration. Alternative 3 would also involve a competitive coal lease sale and issuance of a maintenance lease for a reconfigured mine tract. Under this alternative, 5.0 million tons of unleased federal coal southeast of the tract as applied for would be isolated and could be bypassed if it is not included in the tract. This alternative adds 31.13 acres to the tract under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Leasing of the coal would allow the removal of an important energy resource, contributing to the local and regional economy and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. Mining operations under the proposed action would employ 225 persons. Royalty and bonus payments for the coal mined would be collected by the federal government and split with the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The topography of the tract would be substantially altered during mining. Following reclamation, the average land surface elevation would be significantly lower. This could contribute to reduced habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity. The geologic structure of the site from the base of the coal to the land surface would be subject to considerable, long-term change. An average of 204 feet of overburden, 18 feet of interburden, and 106 feet of coal would be removed from the tract. Development of other minerals potentially present within the tract could not occur during mining. Conventional oil and gas wells would have to be plugged and abandoned during mining. Vegetation and soil, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be removed during mining, and 17.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, amendments (P.L. 94-377), and Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0254D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040266, 427 pages, June 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geology
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mines
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368336?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+HAY+CREEK+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW151634%29%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WEST+HAY+CREEK+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW151634%29%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36360029; 10820-040268_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) of California is proposed. The SMMNRA is unusual within the National Parks System because the recreational area is located adjacent to one of the world's largest urban areas and is comprised of a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Wildland fire is a natural process in the southern California Mediterranean ecosystem, with fire tolerant or fire dependent adaptations characteristics of many species in the ecosystem. Fire history has shaped the plant communities of the area and is a major factor affecting their diversity, productivity, and distribution. Aggressive fire suppression during the 20th century successfully excluded fire from certain forest landscapes, allowing the buildup of forest litter and excessive vegetation and creating conditions for intense large-scale wildfires. During the same period, the area has experienced a dramatic increase in the human population living in wildland areas that are prone to wildfires. Consequently, the number of people and structures at risk from wildfire has dramatically increased as have the associated costs of fighting fires. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The environmentally preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize flexibility, utilizing all available fire management strategies identified to be appropriate for use in the Santa Monica Mountains. Alternative 2 would provide for mechanical fuel reduction, ecological prescribed fire, and strategic fuels treatment. Strategic zones would be identified using up-to-date analysis of vegetation types, fuel characteristics, fire spread models, and potential hazards to life property, and natural and cultural resources. Mechanical fuel reduction would be concentrated in the wildland-urban interface to protect homes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide for firefighter and public safety, reduce fire hazards in the SMMNRA with the most effective fire management strategies consistent with federal laws and policies, protect the park's ecological and cultural resources, identify resource conditions and hazards affecting private property within and around the park boundary that require specific fire management actions, and provide a decision framework for fire and resource managers to evaluate fire management proposals that provide protection for social values from wildfires or proposals that provide enhancement of resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exposure of bare soils to erosion, and degradation of air quality, but these impacts would be temporary. Mechanical removal of fuels would also destroy vegetation and denude soils temporarily. All intrusive management activities would degrade recreational enjoyment of the area until the affected tracts regenerated. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040268, 248 pages, June 3, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - National Parks
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360029?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Agoura Hills, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; draft amended integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement
AN  - 51808797; 2004-064243
AB  - The BLM is proposing to amend its 1998 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS to 1) consider leasing portions of lands currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and 2) develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas activities, similar to those developed for the Northwest National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. This draft document considers three alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. The alternatives offer a range of options for the amount of lands that would be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent to all of the land in the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources--prescriptive-based and performance-based. The EIS evaluates the potential effects to air quality, paleontological resources, soil, water resources, vegetation, wetlands and floodplains, fish, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, cultural and subsistence resources, sociocultural systems, environmental justice, coastal zone management, recreation, and the economy. The alternatives propose a range of land allocations as well as stipulations and required operating procedures to mitigate impacts to resources and their uses.
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; draft amended integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement
Y1  - 2004/06//
PY  - 2004
DA  - June 2004
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-04/012+3080+930
KW  - United States
KW  - terrestrial environment
KW  - natural gas
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - ground water
KW  - environmental management
KW  - conservation
KW  - report
KW  - ecology
KW  - soils
KW  - protection
KW  - North Slope
KW  - pollutants
KW  - regional planning
KW  - pollution
KW  - organic compounds
KW  - reserves
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - hydrocarbons
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51808797?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+draft+amended+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+draft+amended+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2004-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 1150
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 68 tables, sketch maps
N1  - SuppNotes - In 2 volumes; includes CD-ROM and 11 appendices
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHERN SAN JUAN BASIN COAL BED METHANE PROJECT, LA PLATA AND ARCHULETA COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - NORTHERN SAN JUAN BASIN COAL BED METHANE PROJECT, LA PLATA AND ARCHULETA COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36371176; 10814-040261_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The drilling of approximately 300 new coal bed methane (CBM) wells within the 125,000-acre Northern San Juan Basin CBM Project area in La Plata and Archuleta counties, Colorado is proposed. Six companies have proposed to drill the CBM wills and construct ancillary facilities needed to support these wells, which would lie within the San Juan National Forest as well as on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These facilities would include access roads; pipelines for gathering gas and produced water; electric facilities; facilities for measuring and compressing gas; and facilities for treating, containing, and disposing of produced water using deep underground injection. The companies' proposal would include directional drilling to avoid steep slopes in portions of the HD Mountains where feasible. The overall life of the project, including construction, production, and reclamation, would extend approximately 40 years. Construction of well site facilities would begin during 2005 and would continue for five years. The productive life of each well would be expected to be 25 to 30 years. Accordingly, production from the wells drilled at the end of the five-year period would be expected to conclude by 2040. Seven alternatives, including the proposed Action (Alternative 1), five modified versions of the proposed action, and the No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives 1A and 1B would implement the proposed action, but would do so by including directional and horizontal drilling methods to reduce surface impacts. Actions under these two alternatives would include siting multiple wells on some well pads. These wells would drain the same lease areas as the wells under Alternative 1. The Agency's preferred alternative has been identified as Alternative 1A. This alternative would result in the elimination of 62 well pads and 24 miles of associated access road. The resulting permitting activities would allow the companies to develop 184 wells from 112 well pads on federal mineral estate. Within the project area, a total of 283 wells would be drilled from 211 well pads on all jurisdictions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Access to the gas reservoir under federal lands would allow the permit applicants to exploit these resources, thereby contributing to the energy reserves of the national and reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The projects would employ over 900 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economies in the vicinity of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Methane seepage at the Fruitland Formation outcrop could impact aquifers and surface water, endanger human health and safety, degrade soil quality and damage vegetation, release greenhouse gases, and contain dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide, which would further exacerbate damages to the natural and human environment. Surface disturbances would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including forest vegetation and habitat for federally protected species; result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters; and increase the risk of landslides. Depressurizing the coal seam due to removal of water could create conditions by which water would be replaced by oxygen, thereby raising the risk of spontaneous coal fires. Dewatering activities would also reduce the amount of Fruitland formation recharge of local rivers. Historic and prehistoric resource sites could be disturbed or destroyed. The recreational value of the area would be marred visually and by noise and the presence of non-recreationists LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), National Materials and Minerals, Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980, and
JF  - EPA number: 040261, Volume I--621 pages and maps, Volume II-455 pages and maps, June 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - San Juan National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals, Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371176?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+SAN+JUAN+BASIN+COAL+BED+METHANE+PROJECT%2C+LA+PLATA+AND+ARCHULETA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTHERN+SAN+JUAN+BASIN+COAL+BED+METHANE+PROJECT%2C+LA+PLATA+AND+ARCHULETA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Juan, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHERN SAN JUAN BASIN COAL BED METHANE PROJECT, LA PLATA AND ARCHULETA COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 16361037; 10814
AB  - PURPOSE: The drilling of approximately 300 new coal bed methane (CBM) wells within the 125,000-acre Northern San Juan Basin CBM Project area in La Plata and Archuleta counties, Colorado is proposed. Six companies have proposed to drill the CBM wills and construct ancillary facilities needed to support these wells, which would lie within the San Juan National Forest as well as on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These facilities would include access roads; pipelines for gathering gas and produced water; electric facilities; facilities for measuring and compressing gas; and facilities for treating, containing, and disposing of produced water using deep underground injection. The companies' proposal would include directional drilling to avoid steep slopes in portions of the HD Mountains where feasible. The overall life of the project, including construction, production, and reclamation, would extend approximately 40 years. Construction of well site facilities would begin during 2005 and would continue for five years. The productive life of each well would be expected to be 25 to 30 years. Accordingly, production from the wells drilled at the end of the five-year period would be expected to conclude by 2040. Seven alternatives, including the proposed Action (Alternative 1), five modified versions of the proposed action, and the No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives 1A and 1B would implement the proposed action, but would do so by including directional and horizontal drilling methods to reduce surface impacts. Actions under these two alternatives would include siting multiple wells on some well pads. These wells would drain the same lease areas as the wells under Alternative 1. The Agency's preferred alternative has been identified as Alternative 1A. This alternative would result in the elimination of 62 well pads and 24 miles of associated access road. The resulting permitting activities would allow the companies to develop 184 wells from 112 well pads on federal mineral estate. Within the project area, a total of 283 wells would be drilled from 211 well pads on all jurisdictions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Access to the gas reservoir under federal lands would allow the permit applicants to exploit these resources, thereby contributing to the energy reserves of the national and reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The projects would employ over 900 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economies in the vicinity of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Methane seepage at the Fruitland Formation outcrop could impact aquifers and surface water, endanger human health and safety, degrade soil quality and damage vegetation, release greenhouse gases, and contain dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide, which would further exacerbate damages to the natural and human environment. Surface disturbances would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including forest vegetation and habitat for federally protected species; result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters; and increase the risk of landslides. Depressurizing the coal seam due to removal of water could create conditions by which water would be replaced by oxygen, thereby raising the risk of spontaneous coal fires. Dewatering activities would also reduce the amount of Fruitland formation recharge of local rivers. Historic and prehistoric resource sites could be disturbed or destroyed. The recreational value of the area would be marred visually and by noise and the presence of non-recreationists LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), National Materials and Minerals, Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980, and
JF  - EPA number: 040261, Volume I--621 pages and maps, Volume II-455 pages and maps, June 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - San Juan National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals, Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361037?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+SAN+JUAN+BASIN+COAL+BED+METHANE+PROJECT%2C+LA+PLATA+AND+ARCHULETA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTHERN+SAN+JUAN+BASIN+COAL+BED+METHANE+PROJECT%2C+LA+PLATA+AND+ARCHULETA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Juan, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874625; 10813-0_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874625?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874622; 10813-0_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874622?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874621; 10813-0_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874621?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874620; 10813-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874620?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 9 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874344; 10813-0_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874344?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 8 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874342; 10813-0_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874342?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 7 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874340; 10813-0_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874340?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874338; 10813-0_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874338?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 9]
T2  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 905874335; 10813-0_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874335?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESOLATION FLATS NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWEETWATER AND CARBON COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 16344692; 10813
AB  - PURPOSE: The extraction of natural gas under the Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field of Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming is proposed. The area, which lies in south-central Wyoming, encompasses 233,524 acres, with surface ownership 96 percent in federal ownership, 3 percent in private ownership, and less than one percent in state ownership, Currently, the field contains 63 producing and shut-in natural gas wells and a small infrastructure of roads and pipelines for natural gas production already in place. Past drilling activities in the area have been successful. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, up to 385 new wells at 361 locations would be drilled over the next 20 years and additional infrastructure needed to link the wells with existing transportation systems would be developed. The proposed development would add to the approximately 89 wells that have been drilled and developed in the project area. It is anticipated that 250 producing wells would result. Drilling would typically occur at two to four per section. Development would likely occur sporadically and would not be uniformly spaced through the field area. In addition to the road and pipeline systems, the plan would call for provision of power lines, water wells, disposal wells, evaporation ponds, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities. Alternative A would involve the development of 592 wells at 555 locations and the associated necessary infrastructure. The precise number of additional wells, the locations of the wells, and the timing of drilling associated with the natural gas development would be directed by the success of development drilling and production technology, as well as economic considerations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing for regional needs for natural gas, thereby reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, the plan would result in the employment of local and regional workers and generally boost the local and regional economies. The project would include an estimated $840 million in direct expenditures to the operators, which would generate a total of $1.145 billion in total positive economic impact. County revenues would be significant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing disturbance within the field is approximately 1,506 acres. Plan implementation would result in disturbance of an additional 4,923 acres over the 20-year life of the field development. Reclamation activities would reduce surface area disturbance to, 2,139 acres, resulting a total disturbance figure of 3,645 acres. Surface disturbance would affect soils, water quality, vegetation and wetlands, rangeland resources, wildlife habitat (including habitat for Ute ladies' tresses, mountain plover, black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Canada lynx). Visual resources and other recreational resources would e degraded by well rigs, roads, pipelines and other facilities associated with the project. Cultural resources effects have yet to be fully evaluated, but the areas is characterized my a moderate- to high-density of archaeological sites. Operation of the field would result in release of pollutants into the atmosphere, and some human safety risks would be present, particularly occupational risks. Noise levels would occasionally reach levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0262D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040260, 317 pages, May 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-03/015+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344692?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=DESOLATION+FLATS+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36391590; 10798-040244_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to drawdown Banks Lake in Douglas and Grant counties, Washington is proposed. The proposal would result in a drawdown of the lake surface elevation from 1,565 feet to 1,560 feet in August of each year. On September 1 of each year, the water level would begin to be increased, with an elevation of 1,570 feet being reached no later than September 22. The action is needed to increase the probability of meeting flow objectives in the Columbia River at McNary Dam during out-migration of federally protected salmonid stock. The drawdown would provide an additional 127,200 acre-feet of water for this purpose. Issues addressed during scoping include those associated with lake elevations, irrigation deliveries, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, recreation resources, public safety, cultural resources, and economics, with particular respect to the local economy and hydropower generation. In addition to the drawdown alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, resulting in an August surface elevation at the lake of between 1,565 and 1,570 feet. Each alternative includes four potential operational scenarios that could occur within their respective ranges. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, the drawdown would help ensure at least a minimum downstream flow level for out-migrating salmonids; fish prey could become more available to bald eagles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, severe water fluctuations during drawdowns and returns to normal pool elevation would result in damage to vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the reservoir could be affected. Drawdowns would also affect recreational access and, thereby, recreation-based businesses. Habitat for the federally protected bald eagle and pygmy rabbit would be affected as well. The action alternative would result in annual hydroelectric energy generation losses of 8,000 megawatt-hours (MWh); net power generation losses would range from 812 to 1,695 MWh annually. Surface water quality could be affected by increases in thermal mixing during drawdowns, and groundwater levels could drop during these periods. Drawdown under the preferred alternative would result in mudflats covering 2,500 acres, while the No Action Alternative would only expose 1,300 acres. Under either alternative, up to 12 boat launches would be exposed and rendered unusable during the recreational season. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0243D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040244, Final EIS--271 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--621 pages, May 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 01-51
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Banks Lake
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391590?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36386392; 10798-040244_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to drawdown Banks Lake in Douglas and Grant counties, Washington is proposed. The proposal would result in a drawdown of the lake surface elevation from 1,565 feet to 1,560 feet in August of each year. On September 1 of each year, the water level would begin to be increased, with an elevation of 1,570 feet being reached no later than September 22. The action is needed to increase the probability of meeting flow objectives in the Columbia River at McNary Dam during out-migration of federally protected salmonid stock. The drawdown would provide an additional 127,200 acre-feet of water for this purpose. Issues addressed during scoping include those associated with lake elevations, irrigation deliveries, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, recreation resources, public safety, cultural resources, and economics, with particular respect to the local economy and hydropower generation. In addition to the drawdown alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, resulting in an August surface elevation at the lake of between 1,565 and 1,570 feet. Each alternative includes four potential operational scenarios that could occur within their respective ranges. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, the drawdown would help ensure at least a minimum downstream flow level for out-migrating salmonids; fish prey could become more available to bald eagles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, severe water fluctuations during drawdowns and returns to normal pool elevation would result in damage to vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the reservoir could be affected. Drawdowns would also affect recreational access and, thereby, recreation-based businesses. Habitat for the federally protected bald eagle and pygmy rabbit would be affected as well. The action alternative would result in annual hydroelectric energy generation losses of 8,000 megawatt-hours (MWh); net power generation losses would range from 812 to 1,695 MWh annually. Surface water quality could be affected by increases in thermal mixing during drawdowns, and groundwater levels could drop during these periods. Drawdown under the preferred alternative would result in mudflats covering 2,500 acres, while the No Action Alternative would only expose 1,300 acres. Under either alternative, up to 12 boat launches would be exposed and rendered unusable during the recreational season. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0243D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040244, Final EIS--271 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--621 pages, May 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 01-51
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Banks Lake
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386392?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36386357; 10798-040244_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to drawdown Banks Lake in Douglas and Grant counties, Washington is proposed. The proposal would result in a drawdown of the lake surface elevation from 1,565 feet to 1,560 feet in August of each year. On September 1 of each year, the water level would begin to be increased, with an elevation of 1,570 feet being reached no later than September 22. The action is needed to increase the probability of meeting flow objectives in the Columbia River at McNary Dam during out-migration of federally protected salmonid stock. The drawdown would provide an additional 127,200 acre-feet of water for this purpose. Issues addressed during scoping include those associated with lake elevations, irrigation deliveries, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, recreation resources, public safety, cultural resources, and economics, with particular respect to the local economy and hydropower generation. In addition to the drawdown alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, resulting in an August surface elevation at the lake of between 1,565 and 1,570 feet. Each alternative includes four potential operational scenarios that could occur within their respective ranges. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, the drawdown would help ensure at least a minimum downstream flow level for out-migrating salmonids; fish prey could become more available to bald eagles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, severe water fluctuations during drawdowns and returns to normal pool elevation would result in damage to vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the reservoir could be affected. Drawdowns would also affect recreational access and, thereby, recreation-based businesses. Habitat for the federally protected bald eagle and pygmy rabbit would be affected as well. The action alternative would result in annual hydroelectric energy generation losses of 8,000 megawatt-hours (MWh); net power generation losses would range from 812 to 1,695 MWh annually. Surface water quality could be affected by increases in thermal mixing during drawdowns, and groundwater levels could drop during these periods. Drawdown under the preferred alternative would result in mudflats covering 2,500 acres, while the No Action Alternative would only expose 1,300 acres. Under either alternative, up to 12 boat launches would be exposed and rendered unusable during the recreational season. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0243D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040244, Final EIS--271 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--621 pages, May 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 01-51
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Banks Lake
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386357?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BANKS LAKE DRAWDOWN, DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 16361041; 10798
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to drawdown Banks Lake in Douglas and Grant counties, Washington is proposed. The proposal would result in a drawdown of the lake surface elevation from 1,565 feet to 1,560 feet in August of each year. On September 1 of each year, the water level would begin to be increased, with an elevation of 1,570 feet being reached no later than September 22. The action is needed to increase the probability of meeting flow objectives in the Columbia River at McNary Dam during out-migration of federally protected salmonid stock. The drawdown would provide an additional 127,200 acre-feet of water for this purpose. Issues addressed during scoping include those associated with lake elevations, irrigation deliveries, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, recreation resources, public safety, cultural resources, and economics, with particular respect to the local economy and hydropower generation. In addition to the drawdown alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, resulting in an August surface elevation at the lake of between 1,565 and 1,570 feet. Each alternative includes four potential operational scenarios that could occur within their respective ranges. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, the drawdown would help ensure at least a minimum downstream flow level for out-migrating salmonids; fish prey could become more available to bald eagles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternative, severe water fluctuations during drawdowns and returns to normal pool elevation would result in damage to vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the reservoir could be affected. Drawdowns would also affect recreational access and, thereby, recreation-based businesses. Habitat for the federally protected bald eagle and pygmy rabbit would be affected as well. The action alternative would result in annual hydroelectric energy generation losses of 8,000 megawatt-hours (MWh); net power generation losses would range from 812 to 1,695 MWh annually. Surface water quality could be affected by increases in thermal mixing during drawdowns, and groundwater levels could drop during these periods. Drawdown under the preferred alternative would result in mudflats covering 2,500 acres, while the No Action Alternative would only expose 1,300 acres. Under either alternative, up to 12 boat launches would be exposed and rendered unusable during the recreational season. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0243D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040244, Final EIS--271 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--621 pages, May 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 01-51
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Banks Lake
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361041?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BANKS+LAKE+DRAWDOWN%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+GRANT+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36371234; 10789-040237_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and modification of the Weber Dam on the Walker River in Lyon and Mineral counties, Nevada is proposed. The Weber Dam is a small earthen structure on the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation in western Nevada that impounds the waters of a stream that originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and terminates at Walker Lake. The dam is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide irrigation water to the reservation. The major portion of the dam was build from 1933 through 1935 and the dam was completed in 1937 when the spillway gates were installed. The reservoir had a maximum surface area of approximately 960 acres and a storage capacity at the top of the spillway gates of 13,000 acre-feet at the time of completion. Deposition of sediments behind the dam has reduced the capacity to 10,000 acre-feet. A safety analysis conducted by the BIA in the early to mid 1980s, under the agency's Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program, indicated that dam rehabilitation work was necessary. The study concluded by giving the dam a high hazard rating and a poor overall safety rating. The hazard rating indicated that more than six lives could be lost in the event of dam failure. The safety rating indicates that the overall risk of overtopping by floods or structural failure due to an earthquake is relatively high. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water storage capacity of the reservoir, the need for dam modification to allow full water storage capacity in the reservoir, and passage provisions for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a federally protected threatened species. Four alternative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative and the proposed action are given detailed consideration. The proposed action would include repair of all major features of the dam, realignment of the northern half of the embankment, repair of the outlet works and service spillway, enlargement of the emergency spillway, flattening of the upstream slope embankment, structural changes to the upstream and downstream foundations of the dam to increase the dynamic stability of the structure, emplacement of a geomembrane seepage barrier, and construction of a downstream stability berm. In addition, a fish passage would be incorporated into the construction design. Fish passage for LCT would be provided by means of a rock ramp fishway built at the edge of the emergency spillway from the Walker River up to the reservoir pool. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dam repair project would allow the operation of the Weber Reservoir at current full capacity of 10,700 acre-feet. Risks of dam failure or overtopping would be decreased significantly, ensuring the protection of residents and visitors downstream of the reservoir. The proposed action would provide for an integrated set of measures to ensure safe operation of the dam, while utilizing the maximum capacity of the reservoir. Irrigation water would continue to be provided to the reservation. The fish passage would allow for movement of LCT upstream beyond the dam; currently LCT migrate during high flows from Walker lake. Warm water fish would recolonize the reservoir from upstream. Recreational use of the reservoir would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of soil and degradation of water quality near and downstream of the dam. One acre of wetland would be displaced during construction. Recreational access to the dam and reservoir would be lost during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Dams Safety Act.
JF  - EPA number: 040237, 241 pages, May 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Dams
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Walker River
KW  - Weber Reservoir
KW  - Indian Dams Safety Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371234?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TEKOI BALEFILL PROJECT ON THE SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS RESERVATION, TOOLE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - TEKOI BALEFILL PROJECT ON THE SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS RESERVATION, TOOLE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36362159; 10791-040239_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The approval of a long-term lease to the CR Group, LLC for the development and operation of a solid waste landfill, to be known as the Tekoi Balefill Project, on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project requires the approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the lease between the CR Group and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, the latter being the lessor of approximately 500 acres in Section 18, Township 5S, Range 8W of Tooele County. Section 18 lies approximately three miles west of Skull Valley Road (State Road 196) on the tribe's reservation. The site is located approximately 75 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, which would be the chief generator of solid waste for disposal at the facility. The CR Group would construct and operate a non-hazardous solid waste balefill on this property for a period of 25 years, with an option to renew the lease for another 25 years. A balefill is a type of landfill in which waste is mechanically baled before being placed in the facility. The bales are approximately 45 inches by 45 inches by 60 inches and weigh approximately 4,000 pounds. The balefill would be developed using the appropriate impermeable lining material and would only accept non-hazardous municipal solid waste and/or construction solid waste. The municipal solid waste would be compressed, dewatered, and baled prior to transportation to the project site. The storage area at the site would have one 5,000 square foot metal office/shop/parts warehouse building, a diesel fuel tank, water tank, bale unloading area, leachate retention basin, and stormwater evaporation pond. Solid waste, most of which would come from the Wastatch Front area of Utah, would be transported along Interstate 80 and Skull Valley Road to the landfill primarily via flatbed trucks. As individual balefill cells were filled and closed, they would be covered with liming and soil and revegetated consistent with federal agency regulations and requirements. The Skull Valley Band would build a three-mile road on the reservation to provide access to and from the project site. Water for construction and operation of the project would be obtained from surface flows, though supplemental water could be extracted from groundwater wells, which would be located within one mile of the project site. In addition to the proposed lease and balefill, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a site alternative. The alternative site lies in Section 26 of the reservation and encompasses 500 acres incorporating 28 separate 17-acre cells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing an environmentally safe means of disposing of non-hazardous solid waste to meet the needs of Salt Lake City, the balefill would provide for economic development and employment opportunities for the Skull Valley Band. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would destroy vegetation and expose soil to wind and water erosion, increasing sedimentation in receiving surface flows, destroying and degrading wildlife habitat and generating dust. Economic exploitation of mineral resources beneath the landfill would be permanently eliminated; however, locatable minerals have not been found at the site. Surface water drainage patterns would be altered, and project operations could result in the decline in the level of the groundwater table. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0353D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040239, 478 pages, May 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Landfills
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362159?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEKOI+BALEFILL+PROJECT+ON+THE+SKULL+VALLEY+BAND+OF+GOSHUTE+INDIANS+RESERVATION%2C+TOOLE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TEKOI+BALEFILL+PROJECT+ON+THE+SKULL+VALLEY+BAND+OF+GOSHUTE+INDIANS+RESERVATION%2C+TOOLE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36362138; 10788-040236_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petersburg National Battlefield in Petersburg, Virginia is proposed. The Civil War battles associated with Petersburg, which occurred between June of 1864 and April 1865, constituted the longest entrenched siege of any city in North America and include the climatic Battle of Five Forks, known as the "Waterloo of the Confederacy". The fall of Petersburg into Union hands precluded the surrender of Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy. Many changes have occurred at the national battlefield, in the surrounding area, and in park management practices since the park's last master plan was approved in 1965. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would direct the park's priorities toward the preservation of nationally significant battlefield resources both inside and outside the park. Under this alternative, the boundary would expand by 7,238 acres and partnerships with communities and Civil War organizations would be maximized to protect remaining nationally significant battlefield that have a high degree of integrity. Visitors would continue to use the existing visitor center for orientation and participation in interpretive activities. The visitor contact station at Five Forks Battlefield would be relocated. These would be expanded to allow the telling of the broad stories of the Petersburg Campaign. Alternative C would implement a dynamic interpretation scheme, with resources geared toward interactive and animated programs using modern technology where appropriate, the latest interpretive tools, and an upgraded interpretive center. There would be a limited level of boundary expansion (2,030) acres) for protecting existing resources. Visitors could begin to experience the park at any of the five units, with new themes and expanded programs and facilities being offered at Grant's Headquarters at City Point, the Home Front in Old Town Petersburg, Poplar Grove National Cemetery, and Five Forks Battlefields. Partnerships that protect nationally significant battlefields outside the park's boundary would be emphasized. Under Alternative D, the cultural landscape would serve as the mechanism by which the Civil War stories would be told. A boundary expansion of 7,238 acres would preserve nationally significant battlefields, protect existing park resources, and create opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and resources. Selected earthworks, viewsheds, and landscapes would be rehabilitated to reflect their 1864/1865 appearance. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D would allow visitors to begin their experience at any of the five units, with expanded programs and facilities developed at the same sites as under Alternative C. First costs of implementation of alternatives B, C, and D, not including land acquisition costs, are estimated at $7.97 million, $14.6 million, and $15.0 million, respectively. Respective land acquisition losts are estimated at $25.6 million, $10.2 million, and $25.6 million. Respective annual operations and management costs are $3.5 million, $4.48 million, $4.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would protect and interpret resources associated with the campaign, the siege, and defense of Petersburg. Land acquisitions would ensure that conflicting development did not occur in the vicinity of important battlefields. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under alternatives B and D, development of new facilities, including roads, trails, and parking areas, would result in the short- and long-term displacement of vegetation. Archaeological resource sites could also be disturbed under these alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625).
JF  - EPA number: 040236, 215 pages and maps, May 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Petersburg National Battlefield
KW  - Virginia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362138?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petersburg, Virginia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TEKOI BALEFILL PROJECT ON THE SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS RESERVATION, TOOLE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 16362500; 10791
AB  - PURPOSE: The approval of a long-term lease to the CR Group, LLC for the development and operation of a solid waste landfill, to be known as the Tekoi Balefill Project, on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project requires the approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the lease between the CR Group and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, the latter being the lessor of approximately 500 acres in Section 18, Township 5S, Range 8W of Tooele County. Section 18 lies approximately three miles west of Skull Valley Road (State Road 196) on the tribe's reservation. The site is located approximately 75 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, which would be the chief generator of solid waste for disposal at the facility. The CR Group would construct and operate a non-hazardous solid waste balefill on this property for a period of 25 years, with an option to renew the lease for another 25 years. A balefill is a type of landfill in which waste is mechanically baled before being placed in the facility. The bales are approximately 45 inches by 45 inches by 60 inches and weigh approximately 4,000 pounds. The balefill would be developed using the appropriate impermeable lining material and would only accept non-hazardous municipal solid waste and/or construction solid waste. The municipal solid waste would be compressed, dewatered, and baled prior to transportation to the project site. The storage area at the site would have one 5,000 square foot metal office/shop/parts warehouse building, a diesel fuel tank, water tank, bale unloading area, leachate retention basin, and stormwater evaporation pond. Solid waste, most of which would come from the Wastatch Front area of Utah, would be transported along Interstate 80 and Skull Valley Road to the landfill primarily via flatbed trucks. As individual balefill cells were filled and closed, they would be covered with liming and soil and revegetated consistent with federal agency regulations and requirements. The Skull Valley Band would build a three-mile road on the reservation to provide access to and from the project site. Water for construction and operation of the project would be obtained from surface flows, though supplemental water could be extracted from groundwater wells, which would be located within one mile of the project site. In addition to the proposed lease and balefill, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a site alternative. The alternative site lies in Section 26 of the reservation and encompasses 500 acres incorporating 28 separate 17-acre cells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing an environmentally safe means of disposing of non-hazardous solid waste to meet the needs of Salt Lake City, the balefill would provide for economic development and employment opportunities for the Skull Valley Band. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would destroy vegetation and expose soil to wind and water erosion, increasing sedimentation in receiving surface flows, destroying and degrading wildlife habitat and generating dust. Economic exploitation of mineral resources beneath the landfill would be permanently eliminated; however, locatable minerals have not been found at the site. Surface water drainage patterns would be altered, and project operations could result in the decline in the level of the groundwater table. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0353D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040239, 478 pages, May 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Landfills
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16362500?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEKOI+BALEFILL+PROJECT+ON+THE+SKULL+VALLEY+BAND+OF+GOSHUTE+INDIANS+RESERVATION%2C+TOOLE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TEKOI+BALEFILL+PROJECT+ON+THE+SKULL+VALLEY+BAND+OF+GOSHUTE+INDIANS+RESERVATION%2C+TOOLE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 16350205; 10788
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petersburg National Battlefield in Petersburg, Virginia is proposed. The Civil War battles associated with Petersburg, which occurred between June of 1864 and April 1865, constituted the longest entrenched siege of any city in North America and include the climatic Battle of Five Forks, known as the "Waterloo of the Confederacy". The fall of Petersburg into Union hands precluded the surrender of Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy. Many changes have occurred at the national battlefield, in the surrounding area, and in park management practices since the park's last master plan was approved in 1965. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would direct the park's priorities toward the preservation of nationally significant battlefield resources both inside and outside the park. Under this alternative, the boundary would expand by 7,238 acres and partnerships with communities and Civil War organizations would be maximized to protect remaining nationally significant battlefield that have a high degree of integrity. Visitors would continue to use the existing visitor center for orientation and participation in interpretive activities. The visitor contact station at Five Forks Battlefield would be relocated. These would be expanded to allow the telling of the broad stories of the Petersburg Campaign. Alternative C would implement a dynamic interpretation scheme, with resources geared toward interactive and animated programs using modern technology where appropriate, the latest interpretive tools, and an upgraded interpretive center. There would be a limited level of boundary expansion (2,030) acres) for protecting existing resources. Visitors could begin to experience the park at any of the five units, with new themes and expanded programs and facilities being offered at Grant's Headquarters at City Point, the Home Front in Old Town Petersburg, Poplar Grove National Cemetery, and Five Forks Battlefields. Partnerships that protect nationally significant battlefields outside the park's boundary would be emphasized. Under Alternative D, the cultural landscape would serve as the mechanism by which the Civil War stories would be told. A boundary expansion of 7,238 acres would preserve nationally significant battlefields, protect existing park resources, and create opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and resources. Selected earthworks, viewsheds, and landscapes would be rehabilitated to reflect their 1864/1865 appearance. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D would allow visitors to begin their experience at any of the five units, with expanded programs and facilities developed at the same sites as under Alternative C. First costs of implementation of alternatives B, C, and D, not including land acquisition costs, are estimated at $7.97 million, $14.6 million, and $15.0 million, respectively. Respective land acquisition losts are estimated at $25.6 million, $10.2 million, and $25.6 million. Respective annual operations and management costs are $3.5 million, $4.48 million, $4.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would protect and interpret resources associated with the campaign, the siege, and defense of Petersburg. Land acquisitions would ensure that conflicting development did not occur in the vicinity of important battlefields. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under alternatives B and D, development of new facilities, including roads, trails, and parking areas, would result in the short- and long-term displacement of vegetation. Archaeological resource sites could also be disturbed under these alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625).
JF  - EPA number: 040236, 215 pages and maps, May 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Petersburg National Battlefield
KW  - Virginia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16350205?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petersburg, Virginia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 16349085; 10789
AB  - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and modification of the Weber Dam on the Walker River in Lyon and Mineral counties, Nevada is proposed. The Weber Dam is a small earthen structure on the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation in western Nevada that impounds the waters of a stream that originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and terminates at Walker Lake. The dam is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide irrigation water to the reservation. The major portion of the dam was build from 1933 through 1935 and the dam was completed in 1937 when the spillway gates were installed. The reservoir had a maximum surface area of approximately 960 acres and a storage capacity at the top of the spillway gates of 13,000 acre-feet at the time of completion. Deposition of sediments behind the dam has reduced the capacity to 10,000 acre-feet. A safety analysis conducted by the BIA in the early to mid 1980s, under the agency's Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program, indicated that dam rehabilitation work was necessary. The study concluded by giving the dam a high hazard rating and a poor overall safety rating. The hazard rating indicated that more than six lives could be lost in the event of dam failure. The safety rating indicates that the overall risk of overtopping by floods or structural failure due to an earthquake is relatively high. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water storage capacity of the reservoir, the need for dam modification to allow full water storage capacity in the reservoir, and passage provisions for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a federally protected threatened species. Four alternative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative and the proposed action are given detailed consideration. The proposed action would include repair of all major features of the dam, realignment of the northern half of the embankment, repair of the outlet works and service spillway, enlargement of the emergency spillway, flattening of the upstream slope embankment, structural changes to the upstream and downstream foundations of the dam to increase the dynamic stability of the structure, emplacement of a geomembrane seepage barrier, and construction of a downstream stability berm. In addition, a fish passage would be incorporated into the construction design. Fish passage for LCT would be provided by means of a rock ramp fishway built at the edge of the emergency spillway from the Walker River up to the reservoir pool. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dam repair project would allow the operation of the Weber Reservoir at current full capacity of 10,700 acre-feet. Risks of dam failure or overtopping would be decreased significantly, ensuring the protection of residents and visitors downstream of the reservoir. The proposed action would provide for an integrated set of measures to ensure safe operation of the dam, while utilizing the maximum capacity of the reservoir. Irrigation water would continue to be provided to the reservation. The fish passage would allow for movement of LCT upstream beyond the dam; currently LCT migrate during high flows from Walker lake. Warm water fish would recolonize the reservoir from upstream. Recreational use of the reservoir would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of soil and degradation of water quality near and downstream of the dam. One acre of wetland would be displaced during construction. Recreational access to the dam and reservoir would be lost during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Dams Safety Act.
JF  - EPA number: 040237, 241 pages, May 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Dams
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Walker River
KW  - Weber Reservoir
KW  - Indian Dams Safety Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349085?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FEDERAL FLUID MINERALS LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT IN SIERRA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2003).
AN  - 16358953; 10785
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for managing public land and federal fluid minerals leasing and development in Sierra and Otero counties, New Mexico is proposed. Fluid minerals, including oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources, have been exploited in this area of south-central New Mexico since at least 1925, but no extensive development of these resources have taken place. Of the nearly 7.0 million acres of federal, state, tribal, and private lands in the two counties, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million surface acre and 5.0 million acres of underlying federal mineral estate. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management direction, were considered in the final EIS of December 2003. Action alternatives A and B would address existing legislative and regulatory requirements at a programmatic level and /or place constraints if resource values were determined to be sufficiently high or protections were justified in the public interest. Under either action alternative, decisions and analyses would be tiered from the management plan as set out in the final EIS. Alternative A, the preferred alternative, would implement existing laws, thereby protecting the environment to the extent deemed necessary while still meeting BLM's multiple-use mandates. Areas closed to leasing on a nondiscretionary basis would include the old Air Force bombing and gunnery range, public water reserves, the air navigation site, and wilderness study areas. Areas closed to leasing on a discretionary basis would include the Rattlesnake Hill Archaeological District, areas designated for class II visual resource management (VRM), and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Areas on which no surface occupancy would be permitted include recreation and public purpose areas, Community Pit 7, riparian lands, wetlands, playas, ecological study plots, Nutt and Otero Mesa desert grassland areas, the Percha Creek Riparian Habitat Area, the Lake Valley Historic Townsite, Lone Butte, the Tularosa River. Big horn sheep habitat would be placed under controlled surface use restrictions and timing limitations. Areas under controlled surface use restrictions only would include Berrendo Administrative Camp Site, areas characterized by highly erosive and fragile soils, watersheds, big game habitat, crucial habitats, special status species habitats, the Jarilla Mountains, the Mormon Battalion Trail, the Butterfield Trail, the Jornada del Muerto Trail, areas designated for class II visual resource management (VRM), areas limited by VRM and off-road vehicle restrictions (ORV), the Cuchillo Mountains Pinion Nut Collection Area, the Lake Valley Back-country Byway, and areas nominated for ACEC status. Areas under timing limitations only would include the White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Areas and the Red Sands ORV Area. This supplement to the final EIS identified three areas that the governor of New Mexico has recommended for closure to l4easing and that the federal government is now proposing to close to leasing; provides further explanation of the changes made to Alternative A; explains how the changes made between the draft and final EISs do not change the environmental impacts of the preferred alternative; and allows the public an opportunity to comment on these issues. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed management scheme would allow for development of fluid mineral resources within the area, while protecting sensitive cultural and natural resources. In general, access to mineral resources would be relatively open. The exploitation of the resources would provide energy sources for the nation and boost the local economy through employment and capital and other expenditures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The closure of certain areas and limitations on surface occupancy and timing of mineral entry would reduce the potential extent of exploitation of the available resources. Approximately 121,710 acres would be closed to leasing, and a further 1.9 million acres would be designated for restricted access only. Limitations on open areas would increase the costs of locating and developing the resources. Surface disturbances would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and could result in erosion in some areas. Recreationists could experience annoyance due to the presence of equipment and personnel in some areas, though most areas of recreational importance would be protected through closures or surface occupancy limitations. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 01-0016D, Volume 25, Number 1 and 04-0257F, Volume 28, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040233, 26 pages, May 17, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-04-006
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Employment
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Missiles
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358953?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+FLUID+MINERALS+LEASING+AND+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIERRA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=FEDERAL+FLUID+MINERALS+LEASING+AND+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIERRA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 17, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - IMPERIAL-MEXICALI 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36361039; 10774-040222_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a presidential permit and the granting of rights-of-way to Baja California Power (BCP), Inc. and Sempra Energy Resources (Sempra) for the construction of two 230-kilovolt (kV), double-circuit electric transmission line across the US /Mexico international border is proposed to connect the substations in the Imperial Valley in California to a points west of Mexico at the border. The BCP line would connect at the border with a similar line under construction in Mexico. Sempra Energy Resources separately applied for its presidential permit and the granting of the necessary rights-of-way, also for the construction of a 230-kV double-circuit line that would parallel the proposed line and connect with a similar line under construction in Mexico. For both of these projects, the applicants propose to use the international lines to connect separate natural gas-fired power plants, each about three miles south of the border and located approximately 10 miles southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The BCP line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Energia Azteca C.S. de R.L. de C.V., while the Sempra line would transmit power generated by a plant owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali. Both plants would generate electricity strictly for transmission to the United States. Both lines would traverse land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The lines would run adjacent to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line connecting the IV Substation with Mexico's La Rosita Substation. In March 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a decision that the applicants were in violation, but allowed the project to go ahead. Thus, the transmission lines have operated while additional environmental review proceeds, in part via this EIS process. In addition to transmitting power to the US, the transmission lines would be used by the applicants to export small amounts of electricity from the United States for the purpose of initial startup of power plants and the restarting of the plants in the event of a shutdown. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which refuse the applicants the requested permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Power from the Mexican plants would reduce the region's dependence on conventional oil-burning generation plants and improve the region's ability to meet its electrical capacity requirements. The arrangement under which power would be exported to the Mexican plants for reuse by US plants for starting and restarting their generators would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the applicants' power grid. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed during construction of towers, monopoles, and access roads. Roads and the footings of towers and monopoles would result in the permanent displacement of vegetation and soils. The operation of the power plants, which use wet cooling systems, would unavoidably consume water that would otherwise flow into the New River, which drains into the Salton Sea, making the river narrower and the sea smaller and increasing the salinity and concentrations of selenium in the New Rover, the Brawley wetlands, and the Salton Sea. Four latticed towers would placed within the 100-year floodplain of the Pinto Wash. The Mexican power plant emissions would include compounds containing nitrogen and carbon as well as particulate matter. The transmission lines would traverse the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the Yuha Basin Management Area for the flat-tailed horned lizard, a federally protected species. Some borrows for the western burrowing owl, also a species of concern, would be lost, and some individual plants of species considered to be sensitive by the California Native Plant Society could be destroyed. A limited extent of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash natural habitat would be destroyed. Four archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be disturbed, and other sites could be encountered. Though the transmission lines would mar the landscape, the area has few residents and is not frequented by recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040222, 475 pages, May 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0365
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361039?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL-MEXICALI+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36378578; 10772-040220_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for Yosemite National Park, California is proposed. The park occupies 747,955 acres on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Historically, wildland fires occurred naturally throughout the park. These fires constituted an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure and these developments have increased the potential for catastrophic fires. A Fire Return Interval Departure analysis estimated the number of "missed" fires for all areas of the park and determined which areas are in the greatest need of fire and/or mechanical treatment to restore fuel loads to appropriate levels and forest structure to appropriate conditions. The analysis concluded that at least 38 percent of the park and 62 percent of the administrative sites have missed three or more fire return intervals; much of the missed intervals lie within the upper and lower mountain forest communities. These are mid-elevation forest types, and most of the wildland-urban interface in the park is located within them. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with planning direction, fire management activities, community protection, ecosystem management, elements of the natural environment, air quality, wilderness, access to areas within the park, the social environment, and communication, coordination, and consultation with communities, agencies, organizations, and other groups. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would use a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction technologies to achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals. Aggressive treatment strategies would be employed in the wildland-urban interface if necessary, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be use to achieve ecosystem restoration goals. The alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for six to eight years in the wildland-urban interface and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating 1,817 to 9,194 acres per year for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would return the natural role of fire in reducing dangerous levels of wildfire fuels and in maintaining an appropriate forest vegetative structure and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands and habitat for special status animal species. Cultural and traditional landscapes would be restored. The threat of fire to the structures within urban-wildland interface would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mechanical treatments could affect special status plant species. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would degrade the recreational experience of the area, as well as water quality, in the short-term. Short-term effects of treatments would also include increased erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. The plan would result in the annual consumption of 147,462 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the Abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0390D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040220, 917 pages and maps, May 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378578?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36371266; 10772-040220_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for Yosemite National Park, California is proposed. The park occupies 747,955 acres on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Historically, wildland fires occurred naturally throughout the park. These fires constituted an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure and these developments have increased the potential for catastrophic fires. A Fire Return Interval Departure analysis estimated the number of "missed" fires for all areas of the park and determined which areas are in the greatest need of fire and/or mechanical treatment to restore fuel loads to appropriate levels and forest structure to appropriate conditions. The analysis concluded that at least 38 percent of the park and 62 percent of the administrative sites have missed three or more fire return intervals; much of the missed intervals lie within the upper and lower mountain forest communities. These are mid-elevation forest types, and most of the wildland-urban interface in the park is located within them. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with planning direction, fire management activities, community protection, ecosystem management, elements of the natural environment, air quality, wilderness, access to areas within the park, the social environment, and communication, coordination, and consultation with communities, agencies, organizations, and other groups. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would use a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction technologies to achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals. Aggressive treatment strategies would be employed in the wildland-urban interface if necessary, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be use to achieve ecosystem restoration goals. The alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for six to eight years in the wildland-urban interface and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating 1,817 to 9,194 acres per year for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would return the natural role of fire in reducing dangerous levels of wildfire fuels and in maintaining an appropriate forest vegetative structure and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands and habitat for special status animal species. Cultural and traditional landscapes would be restored. The threat of fire to the structures within urban-wildland interface would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mechanical treatments could affect special status plant species. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would degrade the recreational experience of the area, as well as water quality, in the short-term. Short-term effects of treatments would also include increased erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. The plan would result in the annual consumption of 147,462 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the Abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0390D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040220, 917 pages and maps, May 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371266?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36368994; 10772-040220_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for Yosemite National Park, California is proposed. The park occupies 747,955 acres on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Historically, wildland fires occurred naturally throughout the park. These fires constituted an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure and these developments have increased the potential for catastrophic fires. A Fire Return Interval Departure analysis estimated the number of "missed" fires for all areas of the park and determined which areas are in the greatest need of fire and/or mechanical treatment to restore fuel loads to appropriate levels and forest structure to appropriate conditions. The analysis concluded that at least 38 percent of the park and 62 percent of the administrative sites have missed three or more fire return intervals; much of the missed intervals lie within the upper and lower mountain forest communities. These are mid-elevation forest types, and most of the wildland-urban interface in the park is located within them. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with planning direction, fire management activities, community protection, ecosystem management, elements of the natural environment, air quality, wilderness, access to areas within the park, the social environment, and communication, coordination, and consultation with communities, agencies, organizations, and other groups. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would use a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction technologies to achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals. Aggressive treatment strategies would be employed in the wildland-urban interface if necessary, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be use to achieve ecosystem restoration goals. The alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for six to eight years in the wildland-urban interface and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating 1,817 to 9,194 acres per year for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would return the natural role of fire in reducing dangerous levels of wildfire fuels and in maintaining an appropriate forest vegetative structure and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands and habitat for special status animal species. Cultural and traditional landscapes would be restored. The threat of fire to the structures within urban-wildland interface would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mechanical treatments could affect special status plant species. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would degrade the recreational experience of the area, as well as water quality, in the short-term. Short-term effects of treatments would also include increased erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. The plan would result in the annual consumption of 147,462 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the Abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0390D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040220, 917 pages and maps, May 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368994?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36365784; 10772-040220_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for Yosemite National Park, California is proposed. The park occupies 747,955 acres on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Historically, wildland fires occurred naturally throughout the park. These fires constituted an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure and these developments have increased the potential for catastrophic fires. A Fire Return Interval Departure analysis estimated the number of "missed" fires for all areas of the park and determined which areas are in the greatest need of fire and/or mechanical treatment to restore fuel loads to appropriate levels and forest structure to appropriate conditions. The analysis concluded that at least 38 percent of the park and 62 percent of the administrative sites have missed three or more fire return intervals; much of the missed intervals lie within the upper and lower mountain forest communities. These are mid-elevation forest types, and most of the wildland-urban interface in the park is located within them. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with planning direction, fire management activities, community protection, ecosystem management, elements of the natural environment, air quality, wilderness, access to areas within the park, the social environment, and communication, coordination, and consultation with communities, agencies, organizations, and other groups. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would use a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction technologies to achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals. Aggressive treatment strategies would be employed in the wildland-urban interface if necessary, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be use to achieve ecosystem restoration goals. The alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for six to eight years in the wildland-urban interface and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating 1,817 to 9,194 acres per year for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would return the natural role of fire in reducing dangerous levels of wildfire fuels and in maintaining an appropriate forest vegetative structure and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands and habitat for special status animal species. Cultural and traditional landscapes would be restored. The threat of fire to the structures within urban-wildland interface would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mechanical treatments could affect special status plant species. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would degrade the recreational experience of the area, as well as water quality, in the short-term. Short-term effects of treatments would also include increased erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. The plan would result in the annual consumption of 147,462 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the Abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0390D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040220, 917 pages and maps, May 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365784?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36365729; 10772-040220_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for Yosemite National Park, California is proposed. The park occupies 747,955 acres on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Historically, wildland fires occurred naturally throughout the park. These fires constituted an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure and these developments have increased the potential for catastrophic fires. A Fire Return Interval Departure analysis estimated the number of "missed" fires for all areas of the park and determined which areas are in the greatest need of fire and/or mechanical treatment to restore fuel loads to appropriate levels and forest structure to appropriate conditions. The analysis concluded that at least 38 percent of the park and 62 percent of the administrative sites have missed three or more fire return intervals; much of the missed intervals lie within the upper and lower mountain forest communities. These are mid-elevation forest types, and most of the wildland-urban interface in the park is located within them. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with planning direction, fire management activities, community protection, ecosystem management, elements of the natural environment, air quality, wilderness, access to areas within the park, the social environment, and communication, coordination, and consultation with communities, agencies, organizations, and other groups. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would use a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction technologies to achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals. Aggressive treatment strategies would be employed in the wildland-urban interface if necessary, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be use to achieve ecosystem restoration goals. The alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for six to eight years in the wildland-urban interface and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating 1,817 to 9,194 acres per year for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would return the natural role of fire in reducing dangerous levels of wildfire fuels and in maintaining an appropriate forest vegetative structure and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands and habitat for special status animal species. Cultural and traditional landscapes would be restored. The threat of fire to the structures within urban-wildland interface would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mechanical treatments could affect special status plant species. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would degrade the recreational experience of the area, as well as water quality, in the short-term. Short-term effects of treatments would also include increased erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. The plan would result in the annual consumption of 147,462 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the Abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0390D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040220, 917 pages and maps, May 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365729?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YOSEMITE FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16346615; 10772
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for Yosemite National Park, California is proposed. The park occupies 747,955 acres on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Historically, wildland fires occurred naturally throughout the park. These fires constituted an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure and these developments have increased the potential for catastrophic fires. A Fire Return Interval Departure analysis estimated the number of "missed" fires for all areas of the park and determined which areas are in the greatest need of fire and/or mechanical treatment to restore fuel loads to appropriate levels and forest structure to appropriate conditions. The analysis concluded that at least 38 percent of the park and 62 percent of the administrative sites have missed three or more fire return intervals; much of the missed intervals lie within the upper and lower mountain forest communities. These are mid-elevation forest types, and most of the wildland-urban interface in the park is located within them. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with planning direction, fire management activities, community protection, ecosystem management, elements of the natural environment, air quality, wilderness, access to areas within the park, the social environment, and communication, coordination, and consultation with communities, agencies, organizations, and other groups. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would use a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction technologies to achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals. Aggressive treatment strategies would be employed in the wildland-urban interface if necessary, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be use to achieve ecosystem restoration goals. The alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for six to eight years in the wildland-urban interface and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating 1,817 to 9,194 acres per year for 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would return the natural role of fire in reducing dangerous levels of wildfire fuels and in maintaining an appropriate forest vegetative structure and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands and habitat for special status animal species. Cultural and traditional landscapes would be restored. The threat of fire to the structures within urban-wildland interface would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mechanical treatments could affect special status plant species. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would degrade the recreational experience of the area, as well as water quality, in the short-term. Short-term effects of treatments would also include increased erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters. The plan would result in the annual consumption of 147,462 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the Abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0390D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040220, 917 pages and maps, May 4, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346615?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 36355707; 10761-040208_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Colorado National Monument of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West. Sheer-walled canyons, towering monoliths, colorful formations, dinosaur fossils, remains of prehistoric Native American cultures, desert bighorn sheep, and soaring golden eagles reflect the environment and history of this plateau and canyon country. Historic Rim Rock Drive offers 23 miles of breathtaking panoramic views and numerous overlooks. Management areas to be addressed by the plan, which would provide guidance for the monument for the next 15 to 20 years, include those related to ecosystems, cultural resources, vandalism and other resource damage, scenic vistas, air quality, dark night skies, natural soundscapes, implementation of a comprehensive inventory of resources and an associated monitoring plan, the range of visitor opportunities, trails and trailheads, user conflicts on Rim Rock Drive, the potential failure of Rim Rock Drive, interagency information sharing, wilderness, education and outreach, staffing and funding, boundary adjustments, patrolling of the east side, ethnographic resources, and cooperative planning and management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current management practices, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would weave the monument into the regional ecosystem on the northeastern edge of the Colorado Plateau by pursuing common stewardship goals with government agencies, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and communities. While managed as a unit of the National Park System, the monument's importance to and long relationship with the grand Valley would be recognized as a foundation of a shared future. Emphasis would be placed on providing a spectrum of opportunities for people to connect to the monument's important resources and values and to form a conservation ethic. To that end, the strategy would be to prepare for expected regional demand to enjoy the monument, while protecting resources. By strengthening individual relationships, partnerships would be formed for the future protection of common regional and ecosystem goals in the Grand Valley. The Sattlehorn campground would be improved to accommodate some recreational vehicles and more groups, while maintaining its rustic character. The Saddlehorn picnic area would be redesigned to improve visitor enjoyment and protect resources. The Devils Kitchen picnic area would be maintained to protect its historic character; the entrance stations would be improved. Certain undeveloped trail routes would be improved to designated trails for hikers and horses. The monument would continue to use housing at Saddle horn for required staff occupants and administrative space. Housing would be removed from the east entrance. Three minor boundary adjustments would be sought to improve trail heads. Alternative C would focus on making the monument a benchmark of undisturbed ecosystems on the northeastern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Land management agencies would form partnerships to provide a full spectrum of resource conditions and visitor opportunities. Within the mosaic of public lands, the monument would be a distinct control plot focused on the preservation of its important resources and values. The monument would be an outdoor laboratory for learning and developing a conservation ethic. Emphasis would be placed on its role in the national park system, while recognizing the importance of relationships with the residents of the Grand Valley. Capital costs of construction improvements for the preferred alternative are estimated to be between $4.6 million and $6.0 million. Ongoing annual repair and rehabilitation costs for existing facilities are estimated at $220,000 to $630,000. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2.6 million to $3.0 million. Life-cycle costs, inclusive of all capital and annual costs, projected over 25-years, are estimated at $39.6 million to $45.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The variety of recreational experiences and visitor safety would increase substantially through reduction of conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive. Persons seeking information and participating in public education programs at the monument would find far more resources to meet their needs. Monument operations would become more efficient and effective. The unique natural setting of the monument would be protected and preserved for future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities development would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation. Ongoing damage to natural and cultural resources due to continued visitor use and regional development trends could be increased by trail improvements; these impacts would be largely offset by mitigation, interagency cooperation, and partnerships. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Presidential Proclamations 2037 and 3307.
JF  - EPA number: 040208, 251 pages, April 29, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-20
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado National Monument
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 2037, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 3307, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355707?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fruita, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 16357282; 10761
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Colorado National Monument of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West. Sheer-walled canyons, towering monoliths, colorful formations, dinosaur fossils, remains of prehistoric Native American cultures, desert bighorn sheep, and soaring golden eagles reflect the environment and history of this plateau and canyon country. Historic Rim Rock Drive offers 23 miles of breathtaking panoramic views and numerous overlooks. Management areas to be addressed by the plan, which would provide guidance for the monument for the next 15 to 20 years, include those related to ecosystems, cultural resources, vandalism and other resource damage, scenic vistas, air quality, dark night skies, natural soundscapes, implementation of a comprehensive inventory of resources and an associated monitoring plan, the range of visitor opportunities, trails and trailheads, user conflicts on Rim Rock Drive, the potential failure of Rim Rock Drive, interagency information sharing, wilderness, education and outreach, staffing and funding, boundary adjustments, patrolling of the east side, ethnographic resources, and cooperative planning and management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current management practices, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would weave the monument into the regional ecosystem on the northeastern edge of the Colorado Plateau by pursuing common stewardship goals with government agencies, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and communities. While managed as a unit of the National Park System, the monument's importance to and long relationship with the grand Valley would be recognized as a foundation of a shared future. Emphasis would be placed on providing a spectrum of opportunities for people to connect to the monument's important resources and values and to form a conservation ethic. To that end, the strategy would be to prepare for expected regional demand to enjoy the monument, while protecting resources. By strengthening individual relationships, partnerships would be formed for the future protection of common regional and ecosystem goals in the Grand Valley. The Sattlehorn campground would be improved to accommodate some recreational vehicles and more groups, while maintaining its rustic character. The Saddlehorn picnic area would be redesigned to improve visitor enjoyment and protect resources. The Devils Kitchen picnic area would be maintained to protect its historic character; the entrance stations would be improved. Certain undeveloped trail routes would be improved to designated trails for hikers and horses. The monument would continue to use housing at Saddle horn for required staff occupants and administrative space. Housing would be removed from the east entrance. Three minor boundary adjustments would be sought to improve trail heads. Alternative C would focus on making the monument a benchmark of undisturbed ecosystems on the northeastern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Land management agencies would form partnerships to provide a full spectrum of resource conditions and visitor opportunities. Within the mosaic of public lands, the monument would be a distinct control plot focused on the preservation of its important resources and values. The monument would be an outdoor laboratory for learning and developing a conservation ethic. Emphasis would be placed on its role in the national park system, while recognizing the importance of relationships with the residents of the Grand Valley. Capital costs of construction improvements for the preferred alternative are estimated to be between $4.6 million and $6.0 million. Ongoing annual repair and rehabilitation costs for existing facilities are estimated at $220,000 to $630,000. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2.6 million to $3.0 million. Life-cycle costs, inclusive of all capital and annual costs, projected over 25-years, are estimated at $39.6 million to $45.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The variety of recreational experiences and visitor safety would increase substantially through reduction of conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive. Persons seeking information and participating in public education programs at the monument would find far more resources to meet their needs. Monument operations would become more efficient and effective. The unique natural setting of the monument would be protected and preserved for future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities development would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation. Ongoing damage to natural and cultural resources due to continued visitor use and regional development trends could be increased by trail improvements; these impacts would be largely offset by mitigation, interagency cooperation, and partnerships. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Presidential Proclamations 2037 and 3307.
JF  - EPA number: 040208, 251 pages, April 29, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-20
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado National Monument
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 2037, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 3307, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357282?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fruita, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, TULARE AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, TULARE AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36358038; 10760-040207_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks in Tulare and Fresno counties, California is proposed. The proposal also includes a comprehensive management plan for portions of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The overall plan would direct the management of the parks and the river segments for the next 10 to 15 years. The parks feature the largest giant sequoia trees and groves in the world, an extraordinary continuum of ecosystems arrayed along the greatest vertical relief of any protected area in the lower 48 states, the highest and most rugged portion of the high Sierra mountain range, magnificent glacially carved canyons, the largest area of contiguous designated wilderness in California, the largest preserved Sierran foothills ecosystem, a wide spectrum of prehistoric and historic sites, and almost 200 known marble caverns, many inhabited by cave wildlife found nowhere else. The existing management plan lacks, which was implemented in 1971, constitutes an outdated view of the parks. The plan lacks a comprehensive river management component, fails to cover historic sites discovered since 1971, includes facilities and other development proposals that my no longer be desirable, fails to address the changing context of parks in the regional ecosystem, and does not address the use of cabins being used after the expiration of the associated special use permits due to the death of permit holders. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would address parkwide user group needs, wild and scenic river corridors, backcountry recreation, the unique resources found in Cedar Grove and on the floor of Kings Canyon, the Grant Grove in Kings Canyon, the new developed area of Wuksachi, the Lodgepole area of Tokopah Canyon of the Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, Wolverton, Giant Forest, Crystal Cave, Ash Mountain and associated protected foothill areas, Mineral King Valley, and the Dillonwood sequoiz grove, which was added to the Sequoia National Park in 2000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of an additional high Sierra camp in the Hockett Plateau backcountry, which is only a possibility, would result in minor degradation of the pristine natural setting of the area. Removal of certain hydroelectric facilities located within the+ parks would involve demolition of structures of historic significance. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), Public Law 106-574, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040207, Volume 1--227 pages and maps, Volume--426 pages and maps, April 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Kings Canyon National Park
KW  - Kern River
KW  - Kings River
KW  - Sequoia National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-574, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358038?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Three Rivers, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, TULARE AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, TULARE AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36356226; 10760-040207_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks in Tulare and Fresno counties, California is proposed. The proposal also includes a comprehensive management plan for portions of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The overall plan would direct the management of the parks and the river segments for the next 10 to 15 years. The parks feature the largest giant sequoia trees and groves in the world, an extraordinary continuum of ecosystems arrayed along the greatest vertical relief of any protected area in the lower 48 states, the highest and most rugged portion of the high Sierra mountain range, magnificent glacially carved canyons, the largest area of contiguous designated wilderness in California, the largest preserved Sierran foothills ecosystem, a wide spectrum of prehistoric and historic sites, and almost 200 known marble caverns, many inhabited by cave wildlife found nowhere else. The existing management plan lacks, which was implemented in 1971, constitutes an outdated view of the parks. The plan lacks a comprehensive river management component, fails to cover historic sites discovered since 1971, includes facilities and other development proposals that my no longer be desirable, fails to address the changing context of parks in the regional ecosystem, and does not address the use of cabins being used after the expiration of the associated special use permits due to the death of permit holders. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would address parkwide user group needs, wild and scenic river corridors, backcountry recreation, the unique resources found in Cedar Grove and on the floor of Kings Canyon, the Grant Grove in Kings Canyon, the new developed area of Wuksachi, the Lodgepole area of Tokopah Canyon of the Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, Wolverton, Giant Forest, Crystal Cave, Ash Mountain and associated protected foothill areas, Mineral King Valley, and the Dillonwood sequoiz grove, which was added to the Sequoia National Park in 2000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of an additional high Sierra camp in the Hockett Plateau backcountry, which is only a possibility, would result in minor degradation of the pristine natural setting of the area. Removal of certain hydroelectric facilities located within the+ parks would involve demolition of structures of historic significance. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), Public Law 106-574, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040207, Volume 1--227 pages and maps, Volume--426 pages and maps, April 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Kings Canyon National Park
KW  - Kern River
KW  - Kings River
KW  - Sequoia National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-574, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356226?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Three Rivers, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, TULARE AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16359397; 10760
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks in Tulare and Fresno counties, California is proposed. The proposal also includes a comprehensive management plan for portions of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The overall plan would direct the management of the parks and the river segments for the next 10 to 15 years. The parks feature the largest giant sequoia trees and groves in the world, an extraordinary continuum of ecosystems arrayed along the greatest vertical relief of any protected area in the lower 48 states, the highest and most rugged portion of the high Sierra mountain range, magnificent glacially carved canyons, the largest area of contiguous designated wilderness in California, the largest preserved Sierran foothills ecosystem, a wide spectrum of prehistoric and historic sites, and almost 200 known marble caverns, many inhabited by cave wildlife found nowhere else. The existing management plan lacks, which was implemented in 1971, constitutes an outdated view of the parks. The plan lacks a comprehensive river management component, fails to cover historic sites discovered since 1971, includes facilities and other development proposals that my no longer be desirable, fails to address the changing context of parks in the regional ecosystem, and does not address the use of cabins being used after the expiration of the associated special use permits due to the death of permit holders. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would address parkwide user group needs, wild and scenic river corridors, backcountry recreation, the unique resources found in Cedar Grove and on the floor of Kings Canyon, the Grant Grove in Kings Canyon, the new developed area of Wuksachi, the Lodgepole area of Tokopah Canyon of the Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, Wolverton, Giant Forest, Crystal Cave, Ash Mountain and associated protected foothill areas, Mineral King Valley, and the Dillonwood sequoiz grove, which was added to the Sequoia National Park in 2000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of an additional high Sierra camp in the Hockett Plateau backcountry, which is only a possibility, would result in minor degradation of the pristine natural setting of the area. Removal of certain hydroelectric facilities located within the+ parks would involve demolition of structures of historic significance. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), Public Law 106-574, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040207, Volume 1--227 pages and maps, Volume--426 pages and maps, April 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Kings Canyon National Park
KW  - Kern River
KW  - Kings River
KW  - Sequoia National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-574, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359397?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Three Rivers, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE.
AN  - 36353990; 10756-040203_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to preserve historic resources associated with the Vicksburg Campaign of the U.S. Civil War is proposed. On July 4, 1863, after a long and exhausting campaign and siege that cost many thousands of lives and casualties, the Confederal stronghold of Vicksburg on the Mississippi River surrendered to Major General Ulysses S. Grant. It was a moment of decisive strategic importance in the western theatre of the Civil War. In recent years, the threat to the battlefields and other historic sites connected with the Vicksburg Campaign from private and public sector development has increased substantially. To address this growing threat to the nation's irreplaceable cultural heritage, a number of sites in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee associated with the campaign have been recommended for preservation and interpretation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would link all sites associated with the Vicksburg Campaign Trail in a formally designated initiative, seeking to acquire and/or manage and protect all national significant major of primary importance. Secondary sites currently under federal, state, or local government ownerhsip would remain so. Secondary sites that are privately owned would continue to be privately owned, unless a state of local government agency or nonprofit private entity were to step forward and acquire rights to the land. Tertiary sites, which are privately owned for the most part, would largely remain privately owned, barring possible acquisition of fee title ownership or protective easement by state of local government. The initiative would establish an overall management eneity/advisory committee supplemented with working task forces from each state. A variety of actions would be available to assist in the preservation of all sites, ranging from designing a logo and printing maps and brochures to developing partnerships. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Of the three alternatives, Alternative C would achieve the most toward realizing the intention of preserving important historic and cultural aspects of the American national heritage along the campaign trail, while providing the greatest level of enhancement of visitor experience. Archaeological as well as historic resource sites would benefit from government protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private and public sector developments at unprotected sites and installation of facilities at protected sites would result in minor disturbance of soils and topography. Soil disturbances would contribute slightly to erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Developments would also encroach on floodplains and wetlands, and displace small amounts of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-487).
JF  - EPA number: 040203, 287 pages, April 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-18
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Tennessee
KW  - Vicksburg Campaign Trail
KW  - Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE.
AN  - 16357545; 10756
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to preserve historic resources associated with the Vicksburg Campaign of the U.S. Civil War is proposed. On July 4, 1863, after a long and exhausting campaign and siege that cost many thousands of lives and casualties, the Confederal stronghold of Vicksburg on the Mississippi River surrendered to Major General Ulysses S. Grant. It was a moment of decisive strategic importance in the western theatre of the Civil War. In recent years, the threat to the battlefields and other historic sites connected with the Vicksburg Campaign from private and public sector development has increased substantially. To address this growing threat to the nation's irreplaceable cultural heritage, a number of sites in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee associated with the campaign have been recommended for preservation and interpretation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would link all sites associated with the Vicksburg Campaign Trail in a formally designated initiative, seeking to acquire and/or manage and protect all national significant major of primary importance. Secondary sites currently under federal, state, or local government ownerhsip would remain so. Secondary sites that are privately owned would continue to be privately owned, unless a state of local government agency or nonprofit private entity were to step forward and acquire rights to the land. Tertiary sites, which are privately owned for the most part, would largely remain privately owned, barring possible acquisition of fee title ownership or protective easement by state of local government. The initiative would establish an overall management eneity/advisory committee supplemented with working task forces from each state. A variety of actions would be available to assist in the preservation of all sites, ranging from designing a logo and printing maps and brochures to developing partnerships. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Of the three alternatives, Alternative C would achieve the most toward realizing the intention of preserving important historic and cultural aspects of the American national heritage along the campaign trail, while providing the greatest level of enhancement of visitor experience. Archaeological as well as historic resource sites would benefit from government protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private and public sector developments at unprotected sites and installation of facilities at protected sites would result in minor disturbance of soils and topography. Soil disturbances would contribute slightly to erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Developments would also encroach on floodplains and wetlands, and displace small amounts of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-487).
JF  - EPA number: 040203, 287 pages, April 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-18
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Tennessee
KW  - Vicksburg Campaign Trail
KW  - Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357545?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER SANTA YNEZ RIVER FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CACHUMA PROJECT BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR SOUTHERN STEELHEAD TROUT, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - LOWER SANTA YNEZ RIVER FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CACHUMA PROJECT BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR SOUTHERN STEELHEAD TROUT, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36355123; 10749-040196_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fish habitat management plan for southern steelhead trout on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam in northern Santa Barbara County, California is proposed. This species was designated as endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service in August 1997. The lower Santa Ynez River provides critical habitat for the species. The dam created the Cachuma Lake impoundment, which provides water for irrigation, domestic, and municipal and industrial uses. Current users include the city of Santa Barbara, Goleta Water District, Montecity Water District, Carpinteria Valley Water District, and the Santa Ynez River Water District (Improvement District No. 1). Fish habitat improvements would include alterations in ramping schedules for water rights releases, maintenance of residual pool depths, mainstem rearing releases, fish passage supplementation, adaptive management accounting, reservoir surcharging, conservation easements, and bank stabilization. Tributaries to be improved would include Hilton Creek, Quiota Creek, El Jaro Creek, and Nojoqui Creek. Alternative actions access include a No Action Alternative, surcharge alternatives, rearing flow alternatives, and modified passage flow alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would improve habitat for steelhead trout along the river downstream of Lake cachuma through flow, habitat, and passage improvements. These actions would create new habitat and improve existing habitat in the lower river and its tributaries; improve access to spawning and rearing habitats in the lower river and its tributaries; and increase public awareness and support for beneficial actions on private lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan measures would result in disruption of recreational activities and facility closures at Cachuma Lake County Park due to inundation of critical facilities by a three-foot surcharge and/or due to temporary facility closures resulting from relocation of facilitates in anticipation of the surcharge. The surcharge would also result in the loss of riparian and other vegetation, including approximately 452 oak trees along the margins of the lake, and increased erosion at two archaeological sites. Other archaeological sites could be affected similarly. Actions on river tributaries would result in loss of riparian scrub and woodland, discharge of sediments, and loss of pool habitat for steelhead trout, red-legged frog, and western pond turtle. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-044D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040196, Final EIS-552 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--601 pages, April 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-17
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Ynez River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355123?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SANTA+YNEZ+RIVER+FISH+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+CACHUMA+PROJECT+BIOLOGICAL+OPINION+FOR+SOUTHERN+STEELHEAD+TROUT%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOWER+SANTA+YNEZ+RIVER+FISH+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+CACHUMA+PROJECT+BIOLOGICAL+OPINION+FOR+SOUTHERN+STEELHEAD+TROUT%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER SANTA YNEZ RIVER FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CACHUMA PROJECT BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR SOUTHERN STEELHEAD TROUT, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - LOWER SANTA YNEZ RIVER FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CACHUMA PROJECT BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR SOUTHERN STEELHEAD TROUT, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36351689; 10749-040196_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fish habitat management plan for southern steelhead trout on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam in northern Santa Barbara County, California is proposed. This species was designated as endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service in August 1997. The lower Santa Ynez River provides critical habitat for the species. The dam created the Cachuma Lake impoundment, which provides water for irrigation, domestic, and municipal and industrial uses. Current users include the city of Santa Barbara, Goleta Water District, Montecity Water District, Carpinteria Valley Water District, and the Santa Ynez River Water District (Improvement District No. 1). Fish habitat improvements would include alterations in ramping schedules for water rights releases, maintenance of residual pool depths, mainstem rearing releases, fish passage supplementation, adaptive management accounting, reservoir surcharging, conservation easements, and bank stabilization. Tributaries to be improved would include Hilton Creek, Quiota Creek, El Jaro Creek, and Nojoqui Creek. Alternative actions access include a No Action Alternative, surcharge alternatives, rearing flow alternatives, and modified passage flow alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would improve habitat for steelhead trout along the river downstream of Lake cachuma through flow, habitat, and passage improvements. These actions would create new habitat and improve existing habitat in the lower river and its tributaries; improve access to spawning and rearing habitats in the lower river and its tributaries; and increase public awareness and support for beneficial actions on private lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan measures would result in disruption of recreational activities and facility closures at Cachuma Lake County Park due to inundation of critical facilities by a three-foot surcharge and/or due to temporary facility closures resulting from relocation of facilitates in anticipation of the surcharge. The surcharge would also result in the loss of riparian and other vegetation, including approximately 452 oak trees along the margins of the lake, and increased erosion at two archaeological sites. Other archaeological sites could be affected similarly. Actions on river tributaries would result in loss of riparian scrub and woodland, discharge of sediments, and loss of pool habitat for steelhead trout, red-legged frog, and western pond turtle. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-044D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040196, Final EIS-552 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--601 pages, April 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-17
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Ynez River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351689?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SANTA+YNEZ+RIVER+FISH+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+CACHUMA+PROJECT+BIOLOGICAL+OPINION+FOR+SOUTHERN+STEELHEAD+TROUT%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOWER+SANTA+YNEZ+RIVER+FISH+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+CACHUMA+PROJECT+BIOLOGICAL+OPINION+FOR+SOUTHERN+STEELHEAD+TROUT%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER SANTA YNEZ RIVER FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CACHUMA PROJECT BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR SOUTHERN STEELHEAD TROUT, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16345852; 10749
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fish habitat management plan for southern steelhead trout on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam in northern Santa Barbara County, California is proposed. This species was designated as endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service in August 1997. The lower Santa Ynez River provides critical habitat for the species. The dam created the Cachuma Lake impoundment, which provides water for irrigation, domestic, and municipal and industrial uses. Current users include the city of Santa Barbara, Goleta Water District, Montecity Water District, Carpinteria Valley Water District, and the Santa Ynez River Water District (Improvement District No. 1). Fish habitat improvements would include alterations in ramping schedules for water rights releases, maintenance of residual pool depths, mainstem rearing releases, fish passage supplementation, adaptive management accounting, reservoir surcharging, conservation easements, and bank stabilization. Tributaries to be improved would include Hilton Creek, Quiota Creek, El Jaro Creek, and Nojoqui Creek. Alternative actions access include a No Action Alternative, surcharge alternatives, rearing flow alternatives, and modified passage flow alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would improve habitat for steelhead trout along the river downstream of Lake cachuma through flow, habitat, and passage improvements. These actions would create new habitat and improve existing habitat in the lower river and its tributaries; improve access to spawning and rearing habitats in the lower river and its tributaries; and increase public awareness and support for beneficial actions on private lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan measures would result in disruption of recreational activities and facility closures at Cachuma Lake County Park due to inundation of critical facilities by a three-foot surcharge and/or due to temporary facility closures resulting from relocation of facilitates in anticipation of the surcharge. The surcharge would also result in the loss of riparian and other vegetation, including approximately 452 oak trees along the margins of the lake, and increased erosion at two archaeological sites. Other archaeological sites could be affected similarly. Actions on river tributaries would result in loss of riparian scrub and woodland, discharge of sediments, and loss of pool habitat for steelhead trout, red-legged frog, and western pond turtle. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-044D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040196, Final EIS-552 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--601 pages, April 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-17
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Ynez River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345852?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SANTA+YNEZ+RIVER+FISH+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+CACHUMA+PROJECT+BIOLOGICAL+OPINION+FOR+SOUTHERN+STEELHEAD+TROUT%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOWER+SANTA+YNEZ+RIVER+FISH+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+CACHUMA+PROJECT+BIOLOGICAL+OPINION+FOR+SOUTHERN+STEELHEAD+TROUT%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36363670; 10743-040190_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the best management practices (BMP) project to protect groundwater levels and related resources in the Pajaro Valley of southern California is proposed. In the coastal areas and throughout much of the groundwater basin of the valley, overdraft conditions have caused groundwater levels to drop below sea level, creating a landward pressure gradient that causes seawater from the Pacific Ocean to move inland, where it mixes with fresh water. Seawater intrusion, documented since the 1950s, increasingly degrades water quality, limiting the usefulness of groundwater for irrigation and domestic purposes. These conditions are not expected to improve without the elimination of groundwater pumping in areas adjacent to the coast and the development and delivery of additional water supplies. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) needs to prevent further overdraft of the groundwater basin and to halt seawater intrusion. Under the proposed action, PVWMA would import water supplies to the PVWMA service area from the San Joaquin Valley, either from other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors or from non-CVP contractors, using CVP facilities (the Import Water Project; the PVWMA would also develop a recycled water supply and distribution system (the Water Recycling Project). These actions require Bureau of Reclamation approval for a connection of a pipeline to the Santa Clara Conduit of the CVP and the provision of federal funds for the design, planning, and construction of the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. Three alternatives, including No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes only an abstract and comments on the draft EIS and responses to comments, as well as two appended biological opinions. Alternative B includes both the Water Recycling Project and the Import Water Project. Alternative C, the proposal forwarded by the PVWMA and the city of Watsonville, includes only the Import Water Project. The focus of this final EIS is on the Water Recycling Project, which is eligible for funding under Title XVI of the CVP Act of 1992, as amended in 1998. Only those components of the local Water Recycling Project that qualify as Title XVI components are the focus of this EIS, specifically, the recycled water facility, a 4,200-foot-long pipeline, an integrated coastal distribution system, an eight-mile pipeline to the supplemental wells (part of the Import Pipeline), and the supplemental wells themselves. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BMP project, as revised, would prevent further overdraft and continued seawater intrusion into the aquifer to meet the need to provide quality water for the long-term sustainability of agricultural irrigation and production. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction and operation would disturb, and in some areas displace or degrade, vegetation and soils and the associated terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Habitat for several federal protected wildlife species would be affected. Incidental take of some special status species would be inevitable. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040190, 376 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-16
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363670?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PAJARO+VALLEY+WATER+MANAGEMENT+AGENCY+REVISED+BASIN+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PAJARO+VALLEY+WATER+MANAGEMENT+AGENCY+REVISED+BASIN+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000). [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000).
AN  - 36358511; 10744-040191_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery restoration plan for the Trinity River in Humboldt and Trinity counties, California is proposed. The river, located in northwestern California, has historically been a major producer of fish and wildlife resources. Of special importance to humans have been the abundant Chinook and Coho salmon and steelhead trout. Historically, the Hoopa, Yurok, and other tribes depended on the rich fishery. Historic records of fish abundance are problematic; however, one estimate suggests that 168,000 Chinook salmon migrated into the Klamath/Trinity River watershed as recently as the middle of this century. In 1955, Congress authorized the construction of Lewiston and Trinity dams on the Trinity River as well as associated structures to export water into the Central Valley of California. From 1965 to 1997, approximately 74 percent of the river's water above Lewiston was exported, dramatically reducing instream flows and, thereby, resulting in substantial detriment to the river and the associated anadromous fish production. Currently, Trinity River Coho are federally listed as an threatened species. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of October 2000 and continue to be considered in this draft supplement to the final EIS. The preferred alternative, the Flow Evaluation Alternative, would provide for scheduled annual Trinity River releases averaging 595,000 acre-feet, ranging from 369,000 acre-feet in critically years to 815,000 acre-feet in extremely wet years. Peak releases of 11,000 cubic feet per second would occur for five days in May in extremely wet years. Forty-seven mechanical channel rehabilitation project would be implemented to initiate the necessary geomorphic changes. Approximately 10,300 cubic yards of spawning gravel would be added to the river annually. The alternative would also incorporate an adaptive management program, a process using scientific methods to develop and test various management choices. The alternative would be coupled with additional watershed protection efforts to reduce sediment inputs to the mainstem. Due to a federal ruling resulting from a legal challenge to the final EIS, this draft supplement has been issued. The Flow Evaluation Alternative, with slight modifications, remains the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would substantially increase natural production of anadromous fish on the Trinity River mainstem; restore in river and ocean fishing opportunities for anadromous fish for tribal and recreational purposes and; help restore riparian habitat to pre-dam conditions; improve tribal access to tribal trust resources; balance environmental and societal impacts across the Trinity River Basin, Lower Klamath River Basin/Coastal Area, and the Central Valley; allow for continued operation of the Trinity River Dam, including water exports; and limit flooding of lands within the Trinity River floodplain. The plan would provide for a small increase in employment and in annual economic output due primarily to spending by recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Model simulations indicate that increased water demands due to population growth and other factors not related to the project would increase violations of federal temperature standards in the Sacramento River from 14 to 20 percent from 1995 to 2020. Recreational use of the Shasta Reservoir would be impacted somewhat due to drawdowns during dam releases. Long-term hydroelectric production would decline by six percent, though some of this lost power generation would be offset by decreased project use loads as a result of reduced water exports. Reduced water exports would be detrimental to the Central Valley economy. The placement of spawning gravel, implementation of channel rehabilitation projects, and watershed protection activities could disturb cultural resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Trinity River Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-386. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0128D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0084F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040191, Draft Supplemental EIS--257 pages and maps; Technical Appendices (Vol. 1)--989 pages; Technical Appendices (Vol. 2)--921 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-22
KW  - Channels
KW  - Dams
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Trinity River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Trinity River Act of 1955, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358511?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36357157; 10742-040189_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management plan for the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail between El Paso, Texas and San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico is proposed. Added to the National Trails System in October 2000, the trail recognizes the primary route between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel, and Santa Fe. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to preservation of the historic, scenic, and natural resources associated with the trail; the impacts of activities of users of the trail on trail resources; integration of trail management with tribal and other government agency and community plans; opportunities to provide visitor services, education, and/or recreation; and incorporation of international concerns and interests into trail management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would focus on protection and off-site interpretation. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would emphasize resource protection and coordinated programming and activities to enhance visitor experience. Under the preferred alternative, an ambitious program of resource protection and visitor use would be implemented. Trail administrators and partners would work cooperatively to provide coordinated programming and activities that integrate themes, resources, and landscapes at certified sites on private land or protected sites on public land. Resources that best illustrate the trail's significance would be identified and protected on both public and private land. Certification priorities would e placed on sites and segments of the trail supporting interpretive and educational programming and protecting significant resources. An auto tour route would be established. A Mexican/American bi-national approach would promote activities such as interpretation, events, and signage. The Bureau of Land Management's members, White Sands, and Taos resource management plans would be amended to protect important scenic values associated with the trail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management would preserve and protect the historic, scenic, and recreational values of the trail, while allowing visitors adequate access to trail features and adequate interpretation of trail qualities. Archaeological sites associated with the trail would also be protected, preserved, and interpreted. Cultural values of importance to Native Americans would be respected. Increased visitation along the trail would boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visual resource protection restrictions could require mineral extraction interests in the area to move their prospecting and exploitation operations elsewhere, potentially increasing the cost of mining. Other large construction projects would suffer form similar limitations. Increased visitation would increase traffic along the trail corridor and could lead to increased vandalism at the historic and archaeological sites along the trail. Soils and vegetation would be disturbed on 0.4 acre where the pullout parking areas were constructed and interpretive signs placed. An additional 0.5 acre would be disturbed if a companion trail were constructed. LEGAL MANDATES: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act (P.L. 106-307) and National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0048D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040189, 353 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-15
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Mexico
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act, Compliance
KW  - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357157?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36356646; 10742-040189_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management plan for the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail between El Paso, Texas and San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico is proposed. Added to the National Trails System in October 2000, the trail recognizes the primary route between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel, and Santa Fe. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to preservation of the historic, scenic, and natural resources associated with the trail; the impacts of activities of users of the trail on trail resources; integration of trail management with tribal and other government agency and community plans; opportunities to provide visitor services, education, and/or recreation; and incorporation of international concerns and interests into trail management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would focus on protection and off-site interpretation. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would emphasize resource protection and coordinated programming and activities to enhance visitor experience. Under the preferred alternative, an ambitious program of resource protection and visitor use would be implemented. Trail administrators and partners would work cooperatively to provide coordinated programming and activities that integrate themes, resources, and landscapes at certified sites on private land or protected sites on public land. Resources that best illustrate the trail's significance would be identified and protected on both public and private land. Certification priorities would e placed on sites and segments of the trail supporting interpretive and educational programming and protecting significant resources. An auto tour route would be established. A Mexican/American bi-national approach would promote activities such as interpretation, events, and signage. The Bureau of Land Management's members, White Sands, and Taos resource management plans would be amended to protect important scenic values associated with the trail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management would preserve and protect the historic, scenic, and recreational values of the trail, while allowing visitors adequate access to trail features and adequate interpretation of trail qualities. Archaeological sites associated with the trail would also be protected, preserved, and interpreted. Cultural values of importance to Native Americans would be respected. Increased visitation along the trail would boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visual resource protection restrictions could require mineral extraction interests in the area to move their prospecting and exploitation operations elsewhere, potentially increasing the cost of mining. Other large construction projects would suffer form similar limitations. Increased visitation would increase traffic along the trail corridor and could lead to increased vandalism at the historic and archaeological sites along the trail. Soils and vegetation would be disturbed on 0.4 acre where the pullout parking areas were constructed and interpretive signs placed. An additional 0.5 acre would be disturbed if a companion trail were constructed. LEGAL MANDATES: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act (P.L. 106-307) and National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0048D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040189, 353 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-15
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Mexico
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act, Compliance
KW  - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356646?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000). [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000).
AN  - 36356377; 10744-040191_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery restoration plan for the Trinity River in Humboldt and Trinity counties, California is proposed. The river, located in northwestern California, has historically been a major producer of fish and wildlife resources. Of special importance to humans have been the abundant Chinook and Coho salmon and steelhead trout. Historically, the Hoopa, Yurok, and other tribes depended on the rich fishery. Historic records of fish abundance are problematic; however, one estimate suggests that 168,000 Chinook salmon migrated into the Klamath/Trinity River watershed as recently as the middle of this century. In 1955, Congress authorized the construction of Lewiston and Trinity dams on the Trinity River as well as associated structures to export water into the Central Valley of California. From 1965 to 1997, approximately 74 percent of the river's water above Lewiston was exported, dramatically reducing instream flows and, thereby, resulting in substantial detriment to the river and the associated anadromous fish production. Currently, Trinity River Coho are federally listed as an threatened species. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of October 2000 and continue to be considered in this draft supplement to the final EIS. The preferred alternative, the Flow Evaluation Alternative, would provide for scheduled annual Trinity River releases averaging 595,000 acre-feet, ranging from 369,000 acre-feet in critically years to 815,000 acre-feet in extremely wet years. Peak releases of 11,000 cubic feet per second would occur for five days in May in extremely wet years. Forty-seven mechanical channel rehabilitation project would be implemented to initiate the necessary geomorphic changes. Approximately 10,300 cubic yards of spawning gravel would be added to the river annually. The alternative would also incorporate an adaptive management program, a process using scientific methods to develop and test various management choices. The alternative would be coupled with additional watershed protection efforts to reduce sediment inputs to the mainstem. Due to a federal ruling resulting from a legal challenge to the final EIS, this draft supplement has been issued. The Flow Evaluation Alternative, with slight modifications, remains the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would substantially increase natural production of anadromous fish on the Trinity River mainstem; restore in river and ocean fishing opportunities for anadromous fish for tribal and recreational purposes and; help restore riparian habitat to pre-dam conditions; improve tribal access to tribal trust resources; balance environmental and societal impacts across the Trinity River Basin, Lower Klamath River Basin/Coastal Area, and the Central Valley; allow for continued operation of the Trinity River Dam, including water exports; and limit flooding of lands within the Trinity River floodplain. The plan would provide for a small increase in employment and in annual economic output due primarily to spending by recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Model simulations indicate that increased water demands due to population growth and other factors not related to the project would increase violations of federal temperature standards in the Sacramento River from 14 to 20 percent from 1995 to 2020. Recreational use of the Shasta Reservoir would be impacted somewhat due to drawdowns during dam releases. Long-term hydroelectric production would decline by six percent, though some of this lost power generation would be offset by decreased project use loads as a result of reduced water exports. Reduced water exports would be detrimental to the Central Valley economy. The placement of spawning gravel, implementation of channel rehabilitation projects, and watershed protection activities could disturb cultural resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Trinity River Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-386. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0128D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0084F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040191, Draft Supplemental EIS--257 pages and maps; Technical Appendices (Vol. 1)--989 pages; Technical Appendices (Vol. 2)--921 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-22
KW  - Channels
KW  - Dams
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Trinity River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Trinity River Act of 1955, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356377?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO.
AN  - 36354903; 10741-040188_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve of Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties, Idaho is proposed. The monument was established on May 2, 1924, and has been expanded six times. The last Presidential Proclamation expanded the boundaries from 54,000 acres to 739,682 acres to include more volcanic features. The monument was established and expanded to protect the Great Rift volcanic rift zone and its associated features, particularly the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to facilities and services development, transportation and access, public and visitor use and safety, authorized uses, and natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize a broad array of visitor experiences within the Monument and perpetuate historic use patterns. this alternative would promote more travel and access within the monument and provide for more extensive educational and directional signs throughout the monument. One emphasis would be on maintaining a strong interpretation and education program for visitors to help protect resources, maintain a safe visitor experience, and minimize conflicts with traditional users. This alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument. Alternative C would emphasize retention and enhancement of the monument's primitive character, with minimal visitor facilities or services outside the Frontcountry Zone, and less intensive management to influence resource conditions. More acres would be allocated to the Pristine Zone as compared to the other alternatives. This alternative would emphasize opportunities for solitude and provide a more primitive setting fro recreational, education, and management activities; it would also offer protection for geologic and cultural resources and features by limiting access and development. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize aggressive restoration of the 80,000-acre sagebrush steppe community, including noxious weed control and fire management. This alternative would provide fewer acres in the Pristine Zone than Alternative C and less Frontcountry area than Alternative B. Alternative D would target the most acreage for restoration. Commercial service, as well as off-site visitor opportunities, would be emphasized; these commercial services would provide opportunities inside the monument for visitors to experience and learn about the monument's resources and minimize the need for development and agency staffing within the monument. This alternative would also encourage more off-site visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe and environmentally acceptable public use of the monument, the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term benefits due to the completion of the extensive sagebrush steppe restoration program. By encouraging administering agencies to work with partners, including several key gateway communities, the plan would contribute to a general sense of cooperation and enhance public information and services outside the monument. The plan would improve access for fire suppression and resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances. Removing ciders from materials sites in the monument for road construction and maintenance could result in moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. Fire suppression could also impair geologic processes. Sagebrush steppe restoration would lead to exposure of soils over the affected acreage, increasing wind erosion and potential nutrient loss. Livestock grazing would continue to cause soil compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility and productivity. Facility development, including expansion of the visitor center, adding interpretation features and trails in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, signs, and wayside exhibits, would cause moderate disturbances to soils and vegetation. Increases in road density, fire break development, and livestock trampling would increase the potential for noxious weed dispersal. Areas around the monument would be affected by agricultural practices. Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations and bacteria levels. Fires, road construction, increases in visitation, livestock grazing, and agricultural developments could result in major damage to sensitive woodland and grassland wildlife species. Livestock grazing could result in damage to cultural resource sites. Prohibition of public use of certain roads would reduce access to some areas within the monument. Expiration of nonrenewable mineral leases would eliminate a source of income for county leaseholders. LEGAL MANDATES: Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333); Presidential Proclamations 1694, 1916, 2499, 3506, and 7373; Public Law 107-213; and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
JF  - EPA number: 040188, 427 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Craters of the Moon National Monument
KW  - Craters of the Moon Preserve
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1694, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1916, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 2499, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 3506, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354903?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Shoshone, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36351281; 10742-040189_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management plan for the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail between El Paso, Texas and San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico is proposed. Added to the National Trails System in October 2000, the trail recognizes the primary route between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel, and Santa Fe. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to preservation of the historic, scenic, and natural resources associated with the trail; the impacts of activities of users of the trail on trail resources; integration of trail management with tribal and other government agency and community plans; opportunities to provide visitor services, education, and/or recreation; and incorporation of international concerns and interests into trail management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would focus on protection and off-site interpretation. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would emphasize resource protection and coordinated programming and activities to enhance visitor experience. Under the preferred alternative, an ambitious program of resource protection and visitor use would be implemented. Trail administrators and partners would work cooperatively to provide coordinated programming and activities that integrate themes, resources, and landscapes at certified sites on private land or protected sites on public land. Resources that best illustrate the trail's significance would be identified and protected on both public and private land. Certification priorities would e placed on sites and segments of the trail supporting interpretive and educational programming and protecting significant resources. An auto tour route would be established. A Mexican/American bi-national approach would promote activities such as interpretation, events, and signage. The Bureau of Land Management's members, White Sands, and Taos resource management plans would be amended to protect important scenic values associated with the trail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management would preserve and protect the historic, scenic, and recreational values of the trail, while allowing visitors adequate access to trail features and adequate interpretation of trail qualities. Archaeological sites associated with the trail would also be protected, preserved, and interpreted. Cultural values of importance to Native Americans would be respected. Increased visitation along the trail would boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visual resource protection restrictions could require mineral extraction interests in the area to move their prospecting and exploitation operations elsewhere, potentially increasing the cost of mining. Other large construction projects would suffer form similar limitations. Increased visitation would increase traffic along the trail corridor and could lead to increased vandalism at the historic and archaeological sites along the trail. Soils and vegetation would be disturbed on 0.4 acre where the pullout parking areas were constructed and interpretive signs placed. An additional 0.5 acre would be disturbed if a companion trail were constructed. LEGAL MANDATES: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act (P.L. 106-307) and National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0048D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040189, 353 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-15
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Mexico
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act, Compliance
KW  - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351281?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36349707; 10743-040190_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the best management practices (BMP) project to protect groundwater levels and related resources in the Pajaro Valley of southern California is proposed. In the coastal areas and throughout much of the groundwater basin of the valley, overdraft conditions have caused groundwater levels to drop below sea level, creating a landward pressure gradient that causes seawater from the Pacific Ocean to move inland, where it mixes with fresh water. Seawater intrusion, documented since the 1950s, increasingly degrades water quality, limiting the usefulness of groundwater for irrigation and domestic purposes. These conditions are not expected to improve without the elimination of groundwater pumping in areas adjacent to the coast and the development and delivery of additional water supplies. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) needs to prevent further overdraft of the groundwater basin and to halt seawater intrusion. Under the proposed action, PVWMA would import water supplies to the PVWMA service area from the San Joaquin Valley, either from other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors or from non-CVP contractors, using CVP facilities (the Import Water Project; the PVWMA would also develop a recycled water supply and distribution system (the Water Recycling Project). These actions require Bureau of Reclamation approval for a connection of a pipeline to the Santa Clara Conduit of the CVP and the provision of federal funds for the design, planning, and construction of the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. Three alternatives, including No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes only an abstract and comments on the draft EIS and responses to comments, as well as two appended biological opinions. Alternative B includes both the Water Recycling Project and the Import Water Project. Alternative C, the proposal forwarded by the PVWMA and the city of Watsonville, includes only the Import Water Project. The focus of this final EIS is on the Water Recycling Project, which is eligible for funding under Title XVI of the CVP Act of 1992, as amended in 1998. Only those components of the local Water Recycling Project that qualify as Title XVI components are the focus of this EIS, specifically, the recycled water facility, a 4,200-foot-long pipeline, an integrated coastal distribution system, an eight-mile pipeline to the supplemental wells (part of the Import Pipeline), and the supplemental wells themselves. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BMP project, as revised, would prevent further overdraft and continued seawater intrusion into the aquifer to meet the need to provide quality water for the long-term sustainability of agricultural irrigation and production. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction and operation would disturb, and in some areas displace or degrade, vegetation and soils and the associated terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Habitat for several federal protected wildlife species would be affected. Incidental take of some special status species would be inevitable. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040190, 376 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-16
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349707?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PAJARO+VALLEY+WATER+MANAGEMENT+AGENCY+REVISED+BASIN+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PAJARO+VALLEY+WATER+MANAGEMENT+AGENCY+REVISED+BASIN+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36349019; 10742-040189_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management plan for the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail between El Paso, Texas and San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico is proposed. Added to the National Trails System in October 2000, the trail recognizes the primary route between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel, and Santa Fe. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to preservation of the historic, scenic, and natural resources associated with the trail; the impacts of activities of users of the trail on trail resources; integration of trail management with tribal and other government agency and community plans; opportunities to provide visitor services, education, and/or recreation; and incorporation of international concerns and interests into trail management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would focus on protection and off-site interpretation. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would emphasize resource protection and coordinated programming and activities to enhance visitor experience. Under the preferred alternative, an ambitious program of resource protection and visitor use would be implemented. Trail administrators and partners would work cooperatively to provide coordinated programming and activities that integrate themes, resources, and landscapes at certified sites on private land or protected sites on public land. Resources that best illustrate the trail's significance would be identified and protected on both public and private land. Certification priorities would e placed on sites and segments of the trail supporting interpretive and educational programming and protecting significant resources. An auto tour route would be established. A Mexican/American bi-national approach would promote activities such as interpretation, events, and signage. The Bureau of Land Management's members, White Sands, and Taos resource management plans would be amended to protect important scenic values associated with the trail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management would preserve and protect the historic, scenic, and recreational values of the trail, while allowing visitors adequate access to trail features and adequate interpretation of trail qualities. Archaeological sites associated with the trail would also be protected, preserved, and interpreted. Cultural values of importance to Native Americans would be respected. Increased visitation along the trail would boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visual resource protection restrictions could require mineral extraction interests in the area to move their prospecting and exploitation operations elsewhere, potentially increasing the cost of mining. Other large construction projects would suffer form similar limitations. Increased visitation would increase traffic along the trail corridor and could lead to increased vandalism at the historic and archaeological sites along the trail. Soils and vegetation would be disturbed on 0.4 acre where the pullout parking areas were constructed and interpretive signs placed. An additional 0.5 acre would be disturbed if a companion trail were constructed. LEGAL MANDATES: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act (P.L. 106-307) and National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0048D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040189, 353 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-15
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Mexico
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act, Compliance
KW  - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349019?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000). [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000).
AN  - 36348167; 10744-040191_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery restoration plan for the Trinity River in Humboldt and Trinity counties, California is proposed. The river, located in northwestern California, has historically been a major producer of fish and wildlife resources. Of special importance to humans have been the abundant Chinook and Coho salmon and steelhead trout. Historically, the Hoopa, Yurok, and other tribes depended on the rich fishery. Historic records of fish abundance are problematic; however, one estimate suggests that 168,000 Chinook salmon migrated into the Klamath/Trinity River watershed as recently as the middle of this century. In 1955, Congress authorized the construction of Lewiston and Trinity dams on the Trinity River as well as associated structures to export water into the Central Valley of California. From 1965 to 1997, approximately 74 percent of the river's water above Lewiston was exported, dramatically reducing instream flows and, thereby, resulting in substantial detriment to the river and the associated anadromous fish production. Currently, Trinity River Coho are federally listed as an threatened species. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of October 2000 and continue to be considered in this draft supplement to the final EIS. The preferred alternative, the Flow Evaluation Alternative, would provide for scheduled annual Trinity River releases averaging 595,000 acre-feet, ranging from 369,000 acre-feet in critically years to 815,000 acre-feet in extremely wet years. Peak releases of 11,000 cubic feet per second would occur for five days in May in extremely wet years. Forty-seven mechanical channel rehabilitation project would be implemented to initiate the necessary geomorphic changes. Approximately 10,300 cubic yards of spawning gravel would be added to the river annually. The alternative would also incorporate an adaptive management program, a process using scientific methods to develop and test various management choices. The alternative would be coupled with additional watershed protection efforts to reduce sediment inputs to the mainstem. Due to a federal ruling resulting from a legal challenge to the final EIS, this draft supplement has been issued. The Flow Evaluation Alternative, with slight modifications, remains the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would substantially increase natural production of anadromous fish on the Trinity River mainstem; restore in river and ocean fishing opportunities for anadromous fish for tribal and recreational purposes and; help restore riparian habitat to pre-dam conditions; improve tribal access to tribal trust resources; balance environmental and societal impacts across the Trinity River Basin, Lower Klamath River Basin/Coastal Area, and the Central Valley; allow for continued operation of the Trinity River Dam, including water exports; and limit flooding of lands within the Trinity River floodplain. The plan would provide for a small increase in employment and in annual economic output due primarily to spending by recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Model simulations indicate that increased water demands due to population growth and other factors not related to the project would increase violations of federal temperature standards in the Sacramento River from 14 to 20 percent from 1995 to 2020. Recreational use of the Shasta Reservoir would be impacted somewhat due to drawdowns during dam releases. Long-term hydroelectric production would decline by six percent, though some of this lost power generation would be offset by decreased project use loads as a result of reduced water exports. Reduced water exports would be detrimental to the Central Valley economy. The placement of spawning gravel, implementation of channel rehabilitation projects, and watershed protection activities could disturb cultural resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Trinity River Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-386. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0128D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0084F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040191, Draft Supplemental EIS--257 pages and maps; Technical Appendices (Vol. 1)--989 pages; Technical Appendices (Vol. 2)--921 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-22
KW  - Channels
KW  - Dams
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Trinity River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Trinity River Act of 1955, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348167?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL BETWEEN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 16359327; 10742
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management plan for the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail between El Paso, Texas and San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico is proposed. Added to the National Trails System in October 2000, the trail recognizes the primary route between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel, and Santa Fe. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to preservation of the historic, scenic, and natural resources associated with the trail; the impacts of activities of users of the trail on trail resources; integration of trail management with tribal and other government agency and community plans; opportunities to provide visitor services, education, and/or recreation; and incorporation of international concerns and interests into trail management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would focus on protection and off-site interpretation. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would emphasize resource protection and coordinated programming and activities to enhance visitor experience. Under the preferred alternative, an ambitious program of resource protection and visitor use would be implemented. Trail administrators and partners would work cooperatively to provide coordinated programming and activities that integrate themes, resources, and landscapes at certified sites on private land or protected sites on public land. Resources that best illustrate the trail's significance would be identified and protected on both public and private land. Certification priorities would e placed on sites and segments of the trail supporting interpretive and educational programming and protecting significant resources. An auto tour route would be established. A Mexican/American bi-national approach would promote activities such as interpretation, events, and signage. The Bureau of Land Management's members, White Sands, and Taos resource management plans would be amended to protect important scenic values associated with the trail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management would preserve and protect the historic, scenic, and recreational values of the trail, while allowing visitors adequate access to trail features and adequate interpretation of trail qualities. Archaeological sites associated with the trail would also be protected, preserved, and interpreted. Cultural values of importance to Native Americans would be respected. Increased visitation along the trail would boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visual resource protection restrictions could require mineral extraction interests in the area to move their prospecting and exploitation operations elsewhere, potentially increasing the cost of mining. Other large construction projects would suffer form similar limitations. Increased visitation would increase traffic along the trail corridor and could lead to increased vandalism at the historic and archaeological sites along the trail. Soils and vegetation would be disturbed on 0.4 acre where the pullout parking areas were constructed and interpretive signs placed. An additional 0.5 acre would be disturbed if a companion trail were constructed. LEGAL MANDATES: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act (P.L. 106-307) and National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0048D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040189, 353 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-15
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Mexico
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Texas
KW  - El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Establishment Act, Compliance
KW  - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359327?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=EL+CAMINO+REAL+DE+TIERRA+ADENTRO+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+BETWEEN+EL+PASO%2C+TEXAS%2C+AND+SAN+JUAN+PUEBLO%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO.
AN  - 16359280; 10741
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve of Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties, Idaho is proposed. The monument was established on May 2, 1924, and has been expanded six times. The last Presidential Proclamation expanded the boundaries from 54,000 acres to 739,682 acres to include more volcanic features. The monument was established and expanded to protect the Great Rift volcanic rift zone and its associated features, particularly the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to facilities and services development, transportation and access, public and visitor use and safety, authorized uses, and natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize a broad array of visitor experiences within the Monument and perpetuate historic use patterns. this alternative would promote more travel and access within the monument and provide for more extensive educational and directional signs throughout the monument. One emphasis would be on maintaining a strong interpretation and education program for visitors to help protect resources, maintain a safe visitor experience, and minimize conflicts with traditional users. This alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument. Alternative C would emphasize retention and enhancement of the monument's primitive character, with minimal visitor facilities or services outside the Frontcountry Zone, and less intensive management to influence resource conditions. More acres would be allocated to the Pristine Zone as compared to the other alternatives. This alternative would emphasize opportunities for solitude and provide a more primitive setting fro recreational, education, and management activities; it would also offer protection for geologic and cultural resources and features by limiting access and development. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize aggressive restoration of the 80,000-acre sagebrush steppe community, including noxious weed control and fire management. This alternative would provide fewer acres in the Pristine Zone than Alternative C and less Frontcountry area than Alternative B. Alternative D would target the most acreage for restoration. Commercial service, as well as off-site visitor opportunities, would be emphasized; these commercial services would provide opportunities inside the monument for visitors to experience and learn about the monument's resources and minimize the need for development and agency staffing within the monument. This alternative would also encourage more off-site visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe and environmentally acceptable public use of the monument, the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term benefits due to the completion of the extensive sagebrush steppe restoration program. By encouraging administering agencies to work with partners, including several key gateway communities, the plan would contribute to a general sense of cooperation and enhance public information and services outside the monument. The plan would improve access for fire suppression and resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances. Removing ciders from materials sites in the monument for road construction and maintenance could result in moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. Fire suppression could also impair geologic processes. Sagebrush steppe restoration would lead to exposure of soils over the affected acreage, increasing wind erosion and potential nutrient loss. Livestock grazing would continue to cause soil compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility and productivity. Facility development, including expansion of the visitor center, adding interpretation features and trails in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, signs, and wayside exhibits, would cause moderate disturbances to soils and vegetation. Increases in road density, fire break development, and livestock trampling would increase the potential for noxious weed dispersal. Areas around the monument would be affected by agricultural practices. Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations and bacteria levels. Fires, road construction, increases in visitation, livestock grazing, and agricultural developments could result in major damage to sensitive woodland and grassland wildlife species. Livestock grazing could result in damage to cultural resource sites. Prohibition of public use of certain roads would reduce access to some areas within the monument. Expiration of nonrenewable mineral leases would eliminate a source of income for county leaseholders. LEGAL MANDATES: Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333); Presidential Proclamations 1694, 1916, 2499, 3506, and 7373; Public Law 107-213; and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
JF  - EPA number: 040188, 427 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Craters of the Moon National Monument
KW  - Craters of the Moon Preserve
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1694, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1916, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 2499, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 3506, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359280?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Shoshone, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRINITY RIVER MAIN STEM FISHERY RESTORATION, TRINITY AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2000).
AN  - 16357314; 10744
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery restoration plan for the Trinity River in Humboldt and Trinity counties, California is proposed. The river, located in northwestern California, has historically been a major producer of fish and wildlife resources. Of special importance to humans have been the abundant Chinook and Coho salmon and steelhead trout. Historically, the Hoopa, Yurok, and other tribes depended on the rich fishery. Historic records of fish abundance are problematic; however, one estimate suggests that 168,000 Chinook salmon migrated into the Klamath/Trinity River watershed as recently as the middle of this century. In 1955, Congress authorized the construction of Lewiston and Trinity dams on the Trinity River as well as associated structures to export water into the Central Valley of California. From 1965 to 1997, approximately 74 percent of the river's water above Lewiston was exported, dramatically reducing instream flows and, thereby, resulting in substantial detriment to the river and the associated anadromous fish production. Currently, Trinity River Coho are federally listed as an threatened species. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of October 2000 and continue to be considered in this draft supplement to the final EIS. The preferred alternative, the Flow Evaluation Alternative, would provide for scheduled annual Trinity River releases averaging 595,000 acre-feet, ranging from 369,000 acre-feet in critically years to 815,000 acre-feet in extremely wet years. Peak releases of 11,000 cubic feet per second would occur for five days in May in extremely wet years. Forty-seven mechanical channel rehabilitation project would be implemented to initiate the necessary geomorphic changes. Approximately 10,300 cubic yards of spawning gravel would be added to the river annually. The alternative would also incorporate an adaptive management program, a process using scientific methods to develop and test various management choices. The alternative would be coupled with additional watershed protection efforts to reduce sediment inputs to the mainstem. Due to a federal ruling resulting from a legal challenge to the final EIS, this draft supplement has been issued. The Flow Evaluation Alternative, with slight modifications, remains the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would substantially increase natural production of anadromous fish on the Trinity River mainstem; restore in river and ocean fishing opportunities for anadromous fish for tribal and recreational purposes and; help restore riparian habitat to pre-dam conditions; improve tribal access to tribal trust resources; balance environmental and societal impacts across the Trinity River Basin, Lower Klamath River Basin/Coastal Area, and the Central Valley; allow for continued operation of the Trinity River Dam, including water exports; and limit flooding of lands within the Trinity River floodplain. The plan would provide for a small increase in employment and in annual economic output due primarily to spending by recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Model simulations indicate that increased water demands due to population growth and other factors not related to the project would increase violations of federal temperature standards in the Sacramento River from 14 to 20 percent from 1995 to 2020. Recreational use of the Shasta Reservoir would be impacted somewhat due to drawdowns during dam releases. Long-term hydroelectric production would decline by six percent, though some of this lost power generation would be offset by decreased project use loads as a result of reduced water exports. Reduced water exports would be detrimental to the Central Valley economy. The placement of spawning gravel, implementation of channel rehabilitation projects, and watershed protection activities could disturb cultural resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Trinity River Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-386. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0128D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0084F, Volume 25, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040191, Draft Supplemental EIS--257 pages and maps; Technical Appendices (Vol. 1)--989 pages; Technical Appendices (Vol. 2)--921 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-22
KW  - Channels
KW  - Dams
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - California
KW  - Trinity River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Trinity River Act of 1955, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357314?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+RIVER+MAIN+STEM+FISHERY+RESTORATION%2C+TRINITY+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16342676; 10743
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the best management practices (BMP) project to protect groundwater levels and related resources in the Pajaro Valley of southern California is proposed. In the coastal areas and throughout much of the groundwater basin of the valley, overdraft conditions have caused groundwater levels to drop below sea level, creating a landward pressure gradient that causes seawater from the Pacific Ocean to move inland, where it mixes with fresh water. Seawater intrusion, documented since the 1950s, increasingly degrades water quality, limiting the usefulness of groundwater for irrigation and domestic purposes. These conditions are not expected to improve without the elimination of groundwater pumping in areas adjacent to the coast and the development and delivery of additional water supplies. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) needs to prevent further overdraft of the groundwater basin and to halt seawater intrusion. Under the proposed action, PVWMA would import water supplies to the PVWMA service area from the San Joaquin Valley, either from other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors or from non-CVP contractors, using CVP facilities (the Import Water Project; the PVWMA would also develop a recycled water supply and distribution system (the Water Recycling Project). These actions require Bureau of Reclamation approval for a connection of a pipeline to the Santa Clara Conduit of the CVP and the provision of federal funds for the design, planning, and construction of the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. Three alternatives, including No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes only an abstract and comments on the draft EIS and responses to comments, as well as two appended biological opinions. Alternative B includes both the Water Recycling Project and the Import Water Project. Alternative C, the proposal forwarded by the PVWMA and the city of Watsonville, includes only the Import Water Project. The focus of this final EIS is on the Water Recycling Project, which is eligible for funding under Title XVI of the CVP Act of 1992, as amended in 1998. Only those components of the local Water Recycling Project that qualify as Title XVI components are the focus of this EIS, specifically, the recycled water facility, a 4,200-foot-long pipeline, an integrated coastal distribution system, an eight-mile pipeline to the supplemental wells (part of the Import Pipeline), and the supplemental wells themselves. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BMP project, as revised, would prevent further overdraft and continued seawater intrusion into the aquifer to meet the need to provide quality water for the long-term sustainability of agricultural irrigation and production. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction and operation would disturb, and in some areas displace or degrade, vegetation and soils and the associated terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Habitat for several federal protected wildlife species would be affected. Incidental take of some special status species would be inevitable. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 040190, 376 pages, April 20, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-16
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16342676?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PAJARO+VALLEY+WATER+MANAGEMENT+AGENCY+REVISED+BASIN+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PAJARO+VALLEY+WATER+MANAGEMENT+AGENCY+REVISED+BASIN+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COTEAU PROPERTIES COMPANY FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION NDM 91535 FOR WEST MINE AREA, FREEDOM MINE, MERCER COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 16355049; 10739
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal estate under 5,571 acres of private land surface in the West Mine Area (WMA) in Mercer County, North Dakota is proposed. The applicant, Coteau Properties Company, would mine the area as a complement to its existing Freedom Mine, which lies adjacent to the lease tract. The WMA lies in the glaciated northern Great Plans, south of the Missouri River. Critical elements of the human and natural environments that could be affected by the proposed action include cultural resources, including resources of concern to Native Americans, threatened and endangered species, air quality, water quality, prime and unique farmland, invasive nonnative species, wetlands and riparian zones, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would reject the lease application, are cosndiered in this draft EIS. The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would lease the tracts as requested. All 5,571 acres would be leased, allowing for the removal of an estimated 90 million tons of federal lignite. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would issue the lease subject to special requirements to protect cultural resources at the site, with particular emphasis on the preservation of prehistoric Native American stone features. Developed based on tribal consultations, this alternative would set aside approximately 1,325 acres, 14 historic properties, 38 sites, 327 stone rings, 93 stone cairns, 11 stone alignments, one stone effigy, and seven burial sites. The plan would set aside $200,000 in an American Indian Education Trust and provide for research on the archaeological value of the remaining features. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Leasing would extend the projected lifetime of the Freedom Mine without an annual increase in production. Economic stability would be maintained in the communities in this area without placing major additional demands on the existing infrastructure of services. Cultural resource stipulations would provide as much protection as possible to sites of interest to Native Americans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the alternative selected, cultural resources would be affected significantly. Because the surface is privately owned and the federal reserves are not contiguous, activities associat3ed with mining would destroy a significant number of prehistoric American Indian stone features whether or not the federal coal was leased. Though consultation with tribal representatives, it was determined that mining would affect the Hidatsa, Mandan, Arikara, Sioux, and Assiniboine; these tribes have well documented historic ties to the area. Surface disturbances would also displace wildlife habitat and farmland. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040186, 93 pages, April 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-04/005
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Coal
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355049?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COTEAU+PROPERTIES+COMPANY+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+NDM+91535+FOR+WEST+MINE+AREA%2C+FREEDOM+MINE%2C+MERCER+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=COTEAU+PROPERTIES+COMPANY+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+NDM+91535+FOR+WEST+MINE+AREA%2C+FREEDOM+MINE%2C+MERCER+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dickinson, North Carolina; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DRINKING WATER PROJECT, ALBURQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36435196; 10726
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of drinking water conveyance and treatment facilities for the residents of the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico is proposed. The project's region of influence includes portions of the Rio Grande watershed from the outlet works of the Heron Reservoir on the Rio Chama downstream to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande. The project, known as the City's Drinking Water Project, would involve the diversion of surface water from the Rio Grande; transportation of the diverted raw water to a new water treatment plant; treatment of the raw water to meet drinking water standards; and distribution of the treated, potable water to customers in the city's water service area. The project would require the issuance of a license by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) to the city for the location of project facilities on BR-administered lands or rights-of-way, or approval of a license between the city and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for the location of facilities on a rights-of-way held by the BR over property owned by the district; possible execution of a water carriage contract authorizing use of federal irrigation canals to convey non-project water; and issuance of a Section 404 Permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The project would use the city's 48,200 acre-feet annual allocation of waters; after transit losses, the amount available for full use would amount to 47,000 acre-feet. After the city's water was fully consumed, the native Rio Grande water, about half of the 94,000 acre-feet per year, would be returned to the Rio Grande following treatment at the city's Southside Water Reclamation Plant. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the action alternatives would provide a means by which the city could fully use the city's San Juan-Chama project water to provide a sustainable water supply. The preferred alternative (Paseo del Norte Diversion Alternative) would provide for a surface diversion dam in the Albuquerque reach of the Rio Grande, approximately 0.7 mile north of Paseo del Norte. Gates on the east side of the dam would route water to an inlet structure, from which a pump station would pump water into a pipeline for conveyance to the Chappell Drive Water Treatment Plant. The dam would incorporate fish screen and fishway facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a sustainable water supply for the city through direct and full consumptive use of City San Juan-Chama water for potable purposes in accordance with federal safe drinking water regulations. The new system would eliminate the current depletion of the groundwater aquifer, preventing continued land subsidence and deterioration of groundwater quality. Surface water quality would also improve due to agreed upon releases from the diversion structure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require construction of a surface diversion in-river and a pump station with bosque habitat. Approximately 14.7 acres of riparian areas would be affected. Another 2.4 acres of riparian area would be temporarily affected due to pipeline construction activities. The habitat of three federally protected species, including fish and bird species, could be affected by project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0450D, Volume26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040172, Final EIS--419 pages and maps, Appendices--529 pages and maps, April 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-10
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435196?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CITY+OF+ALBUQUERQUE+DRINKING+WATER+PROJECT%2C+ALBURQUERQUE%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CITY+OF+ALBUQUERQUE+DRINKING+WATER+PROJECT%2C+ALBURQUERQUE%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DRINKING WATER PROJECT, ALBURQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DRINKING WATER PROJECT, ALBURQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36354120; 10726-040172_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of drinking water conveyance and treatment facilities for the residents of the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico is proposed. The project's region of influence includes portions of the Rio Grande watershed from the outlet works of the Heron Reservoir on the Rio Chama downstream to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande. The project, known as the City's Drinking Water Project, would involve the diversion of surface water from the Rio Grande; transportation of the diverted raw water to a new water treatment plant; treatment of the raw water to meet drinking water standards; and distribution of the treated, potable water to customers in the city's water service area. The project would require the issuance of a license by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) to the city for the location of project facilities on BR-administered lands or rights-of-way, or approval of a license between the city and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for the location of facilities on a rights-of-way held by the BR over property owned by the district; possible execution of a water carriage contract authorizing use of federal irrigation canals to convey non-project water; and issuance of a Section 404 Permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The project would use the city's 48,200 acre-feet annual allocation of waters; after transit losses, the amount available for full use would amount to 47,000 acre-feet. After the city's water was fully consumed, the native Rio Grande water, about half of the 94,000 acre-feet per year, would be returned to the Rio Grande following treatment at the city's Southside Water Reclamation Plant. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the action alternatives would provide a means by which the city could fully use the city's San Juan-Chama project water to provide a sustainable water supply. The preferred alternative (Paseo del Norte Diversion Alternative) would provide for a surface diversion dam in the Albuquerque reach of the Rio Grande, approximately 0.7 mile north of Paseo del Norte. Gates on the east side of the dam would route water to an inlet structure, from which a pump station would pump water into a pipeline for conveyance to the Chappell Drive Water Treatment Plant. The dam would incorporate fish screen and fishway facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a sustainable water supply for the city through direct and full consumptive use of City San Juan-Chama water for potable purposes in accordance with federal safe drinking water regulations. The new system would eliminate the current depletion of the groundwater aquifer, preventing continued land subsidence and deterioration of groundwater quality. Surface water quality would also improve due to agreed upon releases from the diversion structure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require construction of a surface diversion in-river and a pump station with bosque habitat. Approximately 14.7 acres of riparian areas would be affected. Another 2.4 acres of riparian area would be temporarily affected due to pipeline construction activities. The habitat of three federally protected species, including fish and bird species, could be affected by project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0450D, Volume26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040172, Final EIS--419 pages and maps, Appendices--529 pages and maps, April 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-10
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354120?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CITY+OF+ALBUQUERQUE+DRINKING+WATER+PROJECT%2C+ALBURQUERQUE%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CITY+OF+ALBUQUERQUE+DRINKING+WATER+PROJECT%2C+ALBURQUERQUE%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996).
AN  - 36351158; 10722-040167_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 141,890 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the city of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This draft supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces that 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 141,890 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. The eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lady lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. The soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 040167, Supplemental EIS--382 pages and maps, Appendices1-3--401 pages and maps, Appendices 2-3--Map Supplement, Appendices 3-3--441 pages and maps, April 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351158?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996).
AN  - 15225932; 10722
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 141,890 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the city of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This draft supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces that 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 141,890 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. The eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lady lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. The soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 040167, Supplemental EIS--382 pages and maps, Appendices1-3--401 pages and maps, Appendices 2-3--Map Supplement, Appendices 3-3--441 pages and maps, April 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15225932?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36438961; 10720
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Coronado national Mormial, Cochise County, Arizona is proposed. The approved plan would establish a direction for guiding the management of the memorial or the next 15 to 20 years. The memorial was established to commemorate and interpret Francisco Vazquez de Coronado's 16th Century expedition into what is not the United States. The memorial's southern boundary is the border between the United States and Mexico. It offers extraordinary views of the San Pedro River. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to illegal immigration through the memorial and illegal trafficking in drugs within the memorial, the erosion of the memorial's cultural landscape by modern intrusions, inadequate visitor center /headquarters and maintenance facilities and a lack of adequate housing, conflicts caused by livestock grazing within the memorial, and the need for public and private group coordination to maximize services for visitors and offset the effect of overextended federal funding and staff. Four management prescriptions were established, namely, conservation, education, visitor services, and operations and special use. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), educational and recreational opportunities would be emphasized. The visitor center would be rehabilitated, with an annex added to provide for more office space and storage. New trails would be developed, and pullouts and waysides would be added to roads. Programs would be designed to help visitors understand the Coronado Expedition and its impact on the American Southwest. All lands not included in other prescriptions would be in the conservation prescription. Grazing would be discontinued, and an abandoned powerline along the road to Montezuma Pass would be removed and the rights-of-way revegetated with native plants. Intensive interpretation would be applied to the trail form Montezuma Pass to Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado Cave, and the grasslands north and south of the main road. A loop trail would be developed in the grasslands south of the main road, and a trail accessible by persons with disabilities would be developed in the grasslands north of the entrance, using part of Windmill Road. A trail would be added between the visitor center and the entrance. A new four-unit structure would be added to house temporary employees and visitors. The national memorial would work toward creating an offsite cultural festival to celebrate various associated cultures, emphasizing the historical aspects of the Coronado Expedition. Other special events would be promoted. Costs for construction, rehabilitation, and revegetation measures under the preferred alternative are estimated to range from $1.8 million to $2.2 million. Annual staffing costs for management of the national memorial are estimated at $1.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The annex would decrease congestion within the visitor center and allow better displays of for interpretation, enhancing visitor understanding of the role of the Coronado Expedition and ecosystem-related resources within the monument. Prohibition of grazing would eliminate conflicts between visitors and livestock, reduce soil erosion and compaction, prevent livestock damage to archaeological resources, and improve bird nesting habitat and riparian habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the visitor center annex, parking areas, trails, pullouts, and waysides would disturb soils and vegetation and agitate small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0056D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040165, 341 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-13
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Housing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Coronado National Memorial
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438961?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORONADO+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+COCHISE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=CORONADO+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+COCHISE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hereford, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36363596; 10719-040164_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 17
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363596?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36363446; 10719-040164_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363446?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36363312; 10719-040164_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 25
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363312?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36359045; 10719-040164_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 19
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359045?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36358648; 10719-040164_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358648?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36358507; 10719-040164_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 22
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36357266; 10719-040164_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 18
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357266?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36357124; 10719-040164_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357124?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36357061; 10720-040165_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Coronado national Mormial, Cochise County, Arizona is proposed. The approved plan would establish a direction for guiding the management of the memorial or the next 15 to 20 years. The memorial was established to commemorate and interpret Francisco Vazquez de Coronado's 16th Century expedition into what is not the United States. The memorial's southern boundary is the border between the United States and Mexico. It offers extraordinary views of the San Pedro River. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to illegal immigration through the memorial and illegal trafficking in drugs within the memorial, the erosion of the memorial's cultural landscape by modern intrusions, inadequate visitor center /headquarters and maintenance facilities and a lack of adequate housing, conflicts caused by livestock grazing within the memorial, and the need for public and private group coordination to maximize services for visitors and offset the effect of overextended federal funding and staff. Four management prescriptions were established, namely, conservation, education, visitor services, and operations and special use. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), educational and recreational opportunities would be emphasized. The visitor center would be rehabilitated, with an annex added to provide for more office space and storage. New trails would be developed, and pullouts and waysides would be added to roads. Programs would be designed to help visitors understand the Coronado Expedition and its impact on the American Southwest. All lands not included in other prescriptions would be in the conservation prescription. Grazing would be discontinued, and an abandoned powerline along the road to Montezuma Pass would be removed and the rights-of-way revegetated with native plants. Intensive interpretation would be applied to the trail form Montezuma Pass to Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado Cave, and the grasslands north and south of the main road. A loop trail would be developed in the grasslands south of the main road, and a trail accessible by persons with disabilities would be developed in the grasslands north of the entrance, using part of Windmill Road. A trail would be added between the visitor center and the entrance. A new four-unit structure would be added to house temporary employees and visitors. The national memorial would work toward creating an offsite cultural festival to celebrate various associated cultures, emphasizing the historical aspects of the Coronado Expedition. Other special events would be promoted. Costs for construction, rehabilitation, and revegetation measures under the preferred alternative are estimated to range from $1.8 million to $2.2 million. Annual staffing costs for management of the national memorial are estimated at $1.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The annex would decrease congestion within the visitor center and allow better displays of for interpretation, enhancing visitor understanding of the role of the Coronado Expedition and ecosystem-related resources within the monument. Prohibition of grazing would eliminate conflicts between visitors and livestock, reduce soil erosion and compaction, prevent livestock damage to archaeological resources, and improve bird nesting habitat and riparian habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the visitor center annex, parking areas, trails, pullouts, and waysides would disturb soils and vegetation and agitate small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0056D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040165, 341 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-13
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Housing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Coronado National Memorial
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357061?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORONADO+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+COCHISE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=CORONADO+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+COCHISE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hereford, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36356928; 10719-040164_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 24
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356928?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36356823; 10719-040164_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356823?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36356688; 10719-040164_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356688?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36355495; 10719-040164_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355495?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36354528; 10719-040164_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 28
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354528?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36354429; 10719-040164_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 27
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354429?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36354272; 10719-040164_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354272?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36353801; 10719-040164_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 16
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353801?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36353570; 10719-040164_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353570?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36353398; 10719-040164_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 23
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353398?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36353191; 10719-040164_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 21
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353191?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36352727; 10719-040164_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352727?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36352602; 10719-040164_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352602?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36352561; 10719-040164_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 26
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352561?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36352498; 10719-040164_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 20
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352498?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36351790; 10719-040164_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351790?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 28]
T2  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36351723; 10719-040164_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351723?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FREEPORT REGIONAL WATER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 15228375; 10719
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water supply project to divert water from the Sacramento River at a point south of downtown Sacramento in Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Freeport Regional Water Authority (FWRA), a joint powers agency formed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water Authority (SCWA), holds contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to divert water from the river a location identified as Freeport south of downtown Sacramento. FWRA's project objectives are to support acquisition of additional SCWA surface water entitlements to promote efficient conunctive use of groundwater in its Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which SCWA can deliver existing and anticipated surface water entitlements to the Zone 40 area; to provide facilities through which EBMUD can take delivery of a supplemental supply of water that would substantially meet its need for water and reduce existing and future customer deficiencies during droughts; and to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS covers changes since the draft and provides comments on the draft and responses to the comments. Alternative 2 through 5 would provide for water supply facilities with a design capacity of 185 million gallons per day (mgd). Action alternatives differ only in that each would provide for different pipeline alignments. A preferred alternative (Alternative 5) has been identified. Up to 85 mgd would be diverted under Sacramento County's existing Reclamation water service contract and other anticipated water entitlements and up to 100 mgd would be diverted under EBMUD's amended Reclamation water service contract. The primary components of the action alternatives would consist of an intake facility on the Sacramento River near Freeport, the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant located in the central Sacramento County, a terminal facility at the point of delivery to the Folsom Canal, a canal pumping plant at the terminus of the Folsom South Canal, and aqueduct pumping plant and pretreatment facility near Camanche Reservoir, and a series of pipelines carrying water from the intake facility to the Zone 40 Surface Water Treatment Plant and to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The existing Folsom South Canal would be part of the water conveyance system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The water diversion and treatment system would allow the FWRA to take advantage of its Reclamation contract rights, thereby providing surface water to users in the Zone 40 area and promoting efficient use of groundwater in the area. The efficiency and reliability of water for irrigation and other uses in the Zone 40 area would be enhanced, and water system delivery flexibility would be improved during droughts, catastrophic events, and scheduled major maintenance at the Pardee Dam or Reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in short- and long-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities and facility operation. Construction activities would also result in temporary disturbance to or potential loss of sensitive vegetation and wetland resources, riparian habitat, vernal pools, prime farmland, cultural resources, and habitat for various federally listed plant and animal species, including endangered insect and bird species. Blue oak woodlands and loss of individual locally protected trees would occur. Project facilities would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0115D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040164, 773 pages, April 5, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969., Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15228375?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FREEPORT+REGIONAL+WATER+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DILLON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BEAVERHEAD AND MADISON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36435452; 10708
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general land and resource management plan for 901,226 acres of federal surface and 1.3 million acres of federal mineral estate in the Dillon Resource Area of Beaverhead and Madison counties of southwestern Montana is proposed. The current management plan, which was approved in 1979, must be updated to address changing resource protection and use requirements. Key resource management plan issues identified during scoping include those related to upland and riparian management, forest and woodland management, noxious weeds, sage grouse and westslope cutthroat trout conservation, commercial uses, proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations, wild and scenic river suitability findings, and travel management designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management plan, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, restoration, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but these would be less restrictive than might be applied. Alternative B would accommodate a moderate level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through the use of public land. Resource values and fish and wildlife habitats would be restored and enhanced using a variety of tools. Certain geographic areas containing sensitive resources would received focused management. Resources addressed by all alternatives include air quality, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, geologic resources, paleontological resources, soils, special status species (animal, plant, and fish), forests and woodlands, invasive plants and noxious weeds, rangelands, riparian and wetlands, visual resources, water, and wild horses and burros. Resource uses would include those related to forest products, lands and reality, livestock grazing, minerals, recreation, renewable energy, transportation and facilities, travel management and off-road vehicle (OHV) use, and utility and communications corridors. The plan would also cover fire management and ecology, special area designations, and socioeconomic conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would provide federal administrative authorities with a comprehensive, up-to-date framework for managing lands in the planning area. The plan would sustain and, where appropriate, restore the health and diversity of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; support a sustainable flow of benefits in consideration of the social and economic systems of southwest Montana; and provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Resource exploitation would continue to affect sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, unevaluated and undiscovered cultural resources associated with dispersed recreation, OHV use, vandalism, and other types of illicit activities. Vegetation treatments and other authorized activities , as well as unauthorized travel, could cause short-term displacement of wildlife and short-term increases in soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Decreases in the quantity and quality of forage could also result from treatments. Any facility developments, including recreation facilities, livestock water and other range improvements, and utility and road facilities could result in increased soil erosion. Changes in the level of recreational visitation and associated duration and patterns of use could result in increased conflicts between users and unanticipated changes in resource conditions. Large-scale, stand-replacing wildland fires expected to occur within the planning area over the life of the plan could quickly change the scenic quality of the landscape without regard to visual resource objectives. Scarring of the landscape could also result from unauthorized cross-country travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040153, Draft EIS--407 pages, Appendices--219 pages, Map Supplement, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-04/003+1610
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Montana
KW  - Dillon Resource Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435452?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER SIUSLAW LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE RESTORATION PLAN, LANE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 36434990; 10712
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a forest and aquatic ecosystem restoration plan for public lands within a late-successional reserve (LSR) in the Coast Range Mountains west of Eugene in Lane and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The plan would provide for a 10-year management approach and specific actions needed to achieve the LSR goals set out in the Northwest Forest Plan. The LSR lies almost entirely within the Siuslaw River basin in the Oregon Coast Province, with a very small portion located in the Umpqua River basin. The portion of the LSR addressed by the proposed action encompasses 24,400 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The planning area extends from the eastern edge of the LSR just west of the Lorane Valley, to Oxbow Creek. The northern boundary is defined by the ridge between the Suislaw and Wolf creek watersheds. The southern boundary is defined by the boundary between the Eugene and Roseburg districts, which approximates the ridge between the Suislaw and Umpqua River basins. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to public access resulting from road management actions, the extent of new road construction necessary, the level of risk to existing late-successional forest stands from restoration activities, the impact of thinning on late-successional forest structure, the impacts of restoration on federally protected species (marbled murrelet, northern spotten owl, and Coho salmon), the spread of noxious weeds, and the economics of restoration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in this draft EIS; this abbreviated final EIS provides only comments on the draft EIS and responses to those comments. The preferred alternative (Alternative D), which emphasizes the protection and enhancement of habitat for federally protected species, would complete all 3,100 acres of commercial thinning within the next 10 years. Riparian stands would be thinned without timber removal. Instream woody debris structures would be constructed, and some structures would be cabled for stability. Alternative D would decommission eroding roads and roads in or adjacent to late-successional forest. new road construction would be limited to short, temporary spur roads. Silvicultural treatments would incur $920,000 in contract costs and $5.5 million in BLM staff costs. Decommissioning of 45 miles of road would incur $675,000 in contract costs and $450,000 in BLM staff costs. Instream restoration activities would incur $80,000 in contract costs and $40,000 in BLM staff costs. Replacing culverts would incur $790,000 in contract costs and $370,000 n BLM staff costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect and enhance the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, foster the development of late-successional forest structure and composition in plantations and young forests, and reconnect streams channels to their riparian zones and upslope areas. The moderate revenues resulting from the plan would exceed implementation costs. Commercial thinning would generate $11.6 million in revenue over the 10-year planning period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though the preferred alternative would eecommission a moderate length of roads, the alternative would result in the construction of new road which, along with timber management activities, would result in the disturbance of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Management activities would slow the development of spotted owl dispersal habitat, although activities would always maintain the current level of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0058D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040157, Final EIS--46 pages, Draft EIS--284 pages and maps, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/003+1792
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Analyses
KW  - Streams
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+SIUSLAW+LATE-SUCCESSIONAL+RESERVE+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+LANE+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+SIUSLAW+LATE-SUCCESSIONAL+RESERVE+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+LANE+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LACKAWANNA HERITAGE VALLEY, A STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN.
AN  - 36434542; 10709
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general management plan for the Lackawanna Heritage Valley State and National Heritage Area of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. From 1840 to 1930, the designated period of significance, the Lackawanna Heritage Valley was a great, integrated industrial system designed to extract, process, and transport the anthracite coal that fueled the building of America. The mechanical elements of the system, the mines and works, the rails and mills, were abandoned piecemeal when their usefulness ended. But the organic element of the system, the people, rich in character, resilience and enterprise, survives. Key issues identified include those related to resource protection, interpretation, education, and tourism-based economic development. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue existing activities and programs of the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority (LHVA) related to area operation, are considered in this final draft EIS. Alternatives B and C would continue current activities and programs. Alternative B would extend the focus to a major issue in the valley, namely, the loss of historic resources. An extensive historic preservation program would work to stabilize and preserve most of the remaining resources through Lacawanna County. Interpretation would be decentralized, with only the Lackawanna Visitors Center (and existing partners) providing structured interpretation. Visitors would create their own personalized visitation agendas. LHVA would be encouraged to partner with private owners of important resources. Alternative C would provide for a much more structured interpretation and visitor service experience. Preservation, interpretation, and visitor service efforts would be focused along a delineated tour of the valley that would function as an introduction to the valley's story as well as an activity in itself. Visitors would be strongly encouraged to visitor partner attractions in conjunction with the tour. LHVA would development partnerships with local communities to implement this alternative. Cost of implementing Alternative A are estimated at $9.6 million. In addition to these costs, alternatives B and C would incur costs of $3.05 million and $11.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and enhancing the cultural values of the valley, all alternatives would promote an understanding of those values and forward related economic goals. Economic benefits resulting from alternatives A, B, and C would be worth $3,86 million, $29.55 million, and $33.52 million, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of visitor facilities would result in the displacement of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation under alternatives B and C would significantly increase the numbers of vehicle trips in the area, but the increases would not be significant in the context of other growth-inducing factors in the valley region. LEGAL MANDATES: Lackawanna Heritage Valley National Heritage Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0194D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040154, 89 pages, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-06
KW  - Coal
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lackawanna Heritage Valley
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Lackawanna Heritage Valley National Heritage Act of 2000, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434542?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LACKAWANNA+HERITAGE+VALLEY%2C+A+STATE+AND+NATIONAL+HERITAGE+AREA%2C+NORTHEASTERN+PENNSYLVANIA%3A+MANAGEMENT+ACTION+PLAN.&rft.title=LACKAWANNA+HERITAGE+VALLEY%2C+A+STATE+AND+NATIONAL+HERITAGE+AREA%2C+NORTHEASTERN+PENNSYLVANIA%3A+MANAGEMENT+ACTION+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER SIUSLAW LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE RESTORATION PLAN, LANE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - UPPER SIUSLAW LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE RESTORATION PLAN, LANE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 36356385; 10712-040157_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a forest and aquatic ecosystem restoration plan for public lands within a late-successional reserve (LSR) in the Coast Range Mountains west of Eugene in Lane and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The plan would provide for a 10-year management approach and specific actions needed to achieve the LSR goals set out in the Northwest Forest Plan. The LSR lies almost entirely within the Siuslaw River basin in the Oregon Coast Province, with a very small portion located in the Umpqua River basin. The portion of the LSR addressed by the proposed action encompasses 24,400 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The planning area extends from the eastern edge of the LSR just west of the Lorane Valley, to Oxbow Creek. The northern boundary is defined by the ridge between the Suislaw and Wolf creek watersheds. The southern boundary is defined by the boundary between the Eugene and Roseburg districts, which approximates the ridge between the Suislaw and Umpqua River basins. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to public access resulting from road management actions, the extent of new road construction necessary, the level of risk to existing late-successional forest stands from restoration activities, the impact of thinning on late-successional forest structure, the impacts of restoration on federally protected species (marbled murrelet, northern spotten owl, and Coho salmon), the spread of noxious weeds, and the economics of restoration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in this draft EIS; this abbreviated final EIS provides only comments on the draft EIS and responses to those comments. The preferred alternative (Alternative D), which emphasizes the protection and enhancement of habitat for federally protected species, would complete all 3,100 acres of commercial thinning within the next 10 years. Riparian stands would be thinned without timber removal. Instream woody debris structures would be constructed, and some structures would be cabled for stability. Alternative D would decommission eroding roads and roads in or adjacent to late-successional forest. new road construction would be limited to short, temporary spur roads. Silvicultural treatments would incur $920,000 in contract costs and $5.5 million in BLM staff costs. Decommissioning of 45 miles of road would incur $675,000 in contract costs and $450,000 in BLM staff costs. Instream restoration activities would incur $80,000 in contract costs and $40,000 in BLM staff costs. Replacing culverts would incur $790,000 in contract costs and $370,000 n BLM staff costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect and enhance the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, foster the development of late-successional forest structure and composition in plantations and young forests, and reconnect streams channels to their riparian zones and upslope areas. The moderate revenues resulting from the plan would exceed implementation costs. Commercial thinning would generate $11.6 million in revenue over the 10-year planning period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though the preferred alternative would eecommission a moderate length of roads, the alternative would result in the construction of new road which, along with timber management activities, would result in the disturbance of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Management activities would slow the development of spotted owl dispersal habitat, although activities would always maintain the current level of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0058D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040157, Final EIS--46 pages, Draft EIS--284 pages and maps, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/003+1792
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Analyses
KW  - Streams
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356385?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+SIUSLAW+LATE-SUCCESSIONAL+RESERVE+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+LANE+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+SIUSLAW+LATE-SUCCESSIONAL+RESERVE+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+LANE+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LACKAWANNA HERITAGE VALLEY, A STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - LACKAWANNA HERITAGE VALLEY, A STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN.
AN  - 36356312; 10709-040154_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a general management plan for the Lackawanna Heritage Valley State and National Heritage Area of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. From 1840 to 1930, the designated period of significance, the Lackawanna Heritage Valley was a great, integrated industrial system designed to extract, process, and transport the anthracite coal that fueled the building of America. The mechanical elements of the system, the mines and works, the rails and mills, were abandoned piecemeal when their usefulness ended. But the organic element of the system, the people, rich in character, resilience and enterprise, survives. Key issues identified include those related to resource protection, interpretation, education, and tourism-based economic development. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue existing activities and programs of the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority (LHVA) related to area operation, are considered in this final draft EIS. Alternatives B and C would continue current activities and programs. Alternative B would extend the focus to a major issue in the valley, namely, the loss of historic resources. An extensive historic preservation program would work to stabilize and preserve most of the remaining resources through Lacawanna County. Interpretation would be decentralized, with only the Lackawanna Visitors Center (and existing partners) providing structured interpretation. Visitors would create their own personalized visitation agendas. LHVA would be encouraged to partner with private owners of important resources. Alternative C would provide for a much more structured interpretation and visitor service experience. Preservation, interpretation, and visitor service efforts would be focused along a delineated tour of the valley that would function as an introduction to the valley's story as well as an activity in itself. Visitors would be strongly encouraged to visitor partner attractions in conjunction with the tour. LHVA would development partnerships with local communities to implement this alternative. Cost of implementing Alternative A are estimated at $9.6 million. In addition to these costs, alternatives B and C would incur costs of $3.05 million and $11.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and enhancing the cultural values of the valley, all alternatives would promote an understanding of those values and forward related economic goals. Economic benefits resulting from alternatives A, B, and C would be worth $3,86 million, $29.55 million, and $33.52 million, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of visitor facilities would result in the displacement of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation under alternatives B and C would significantly increase the numbers of vehicle trips in the area, but the increases would not be significant in the context of other growth-inducing factors in the valley region. LEGAL MANDATES: Lackawanna Heritage Valley National Heritage Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0194D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040154, 89 pages, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-06
KW  - Coal
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Mining
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lackawanna Heritage Valley
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Lackawanna Heritage Valley National Heritage Act of 2000, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356312?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LACKAWANNA+HERITAGE+VALLEY%2C+A+STATE+AND+NATIONAL+HERITAGE+AREA%2C+NORTHEASTERN+PENNSYLVANIA%3A+MANAGEMENT+ACTION+PLAN.&rft.title=LACKAWANNA+HERITAGE+VALLEY%2C+A+STATE+AND+NATIONAL+HERITAGE+AREA%2C+NORTHEASTERN+PENNSYLVANIA%3A+MANAGEMENT+ACTION+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DILLON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BEAVERHEAD AND MADISON COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - DILLON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BEAVERHEAD AND MADISON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36355108; 10708-040153_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general land and resource management plan for 901,226 acres of federal surface and 1.3 million acres of federal mineral estate in the Dillon Resource Area of Beaverhead and Madison counties of southwestern Montana is proposed. The current management plan, which was approved in 1979, must be updated to address changing resource protection and use requirements. Key resource management plan issues identified during scoping include those related to upland and riparian management, forest and woodland management, noxious weeds, sage grouse and westslope cutthroat trout conservation, commercial uses, proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations, wild and scenic river suitability findings, and travel management designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management plan, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, restoration, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but these would be less restrictive than might be applied. Alternative B would accommodate a moderate level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through the use of public land. Resource values and fish and wildlife habitats would be restored and enhanced using a variety of tools. Certain geographic areas containing sensitive resources would received focused management. Resources addressed by all alternatives include air quality, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, geologic resources, paleontological resources, soils, special status species (animal, plant, and fish), forests and woodlands, invasive plants and noxious weeds, rangelands, riparian and wetlands, visual resources, water, and wild horses and burros. Resource uses would include those related to forest products, lands and reality, livestock grazing, minerals, recreation, renewable energy, transportation and facilities, travel management and off-road vehicle (OHV) use, and utility and communications corridors. The plan would also cover fire management and ecology, special area designations, and socioeconomic conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would provide federal administrative authorities with a comprehensive, up-to-date framework for managing lands in the planning area. The plan would sustain and, where appropriate, restore the health and diversity of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; support a sustainable flow of benefits in consideration of the social and economic systems of southwest Montana; and provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Resource exploitation would continue to affect sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, unevaluated and undiscovered cultural resources associated with dispersed recreation, OHV use, vandalism, and other types of illicit activities. Vegetation treatments and other authorized activities , as well as unauthorized travel, could cause short-term displacement of wildlife and short-term increases in soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Decreases in the quantity and quality of forage could also result from treatments. Any facility developments, including recreation facilities, livestock water and other range improvements, and utility and road facilities could result in increased soil erosion. Changes in the level of recreational visitation and associated duration and patterns of use could result in increased conflicts between users and unanticipated changes in resource conditions. Large-scale, stand-replacing wildland fires expected to occur within the planning area over the life of the plan could quickly change the scenic quality of the landscape without regard to visual resource objectives. Scarring of the landscape could also result from unauthorized cross-country travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040153, Draft EIS--407 pages, Appendices--219 pages, Map Supplement, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-04/003+1610
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Montana
KW  - Dillon Resource Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355108?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DILLON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BEAVERHEAD AND MADISON COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - DILLON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BEAVERHEAD AND MADISON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36354098; 10708-040153_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general land and resource management plan for 901,226 acres of federal surface and 1.3 million acres of federal mineral estate in the Dillon Resource Area of Beaverhead and Madison counties of southwestern Montana is proposed. The current management plan, which was approved in 1979, must be updated to address changing resource protection and use requirements. Key resource management plan issues identified during scoping include those related to upland and riparian management, forest and woodland management, noxious weeds, sage grouse and westslope cutthroat trout conservation, commercial uses, proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations, wild and scenic river suitability findings, and travel management designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management plan, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, restoration, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but these would be less restrictive than might be applied. Alternative B would accommodate a moderate level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through the use of public land. Resource values and fish and wildlife habitats would be restored and enhanced using a variety of tools. Certain geographic areas containing sensitive resources would received focused management. Resources addressed by all alternatives include air quality, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, geologic resources, paleontological resources, soils, special status species (animal, plant, and fish), forests and woodlands, invasive plants and noxious weeds, rangelands, riparian and wetlands, visual resources, water, and wild horses and burros. Resource uses would include those related to forest products, lands and reality, livestock grazing, minerals, recreation, renewable energy, transportation and facilities, travel management and off-road vehicle (OHV) use, and utility and communications corridors. The plan would also cover fire management and ecology, special area designations, and socioeconomic conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would provide federal administrative authorities with a comprehensive, up-to-date framework for managing lands in the planning area. The plan would sustain and, where appropriate, restore the health and diversity of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; support a sustainable flow of benefits in consideration of the social and economic systems of southwest Montana; and provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Resource exploitation would continue to affect sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, unevaluated and undiscovered cultural resources associated with dispersed recreation, OHV use, vandalism, and other types of illicit activities. Vegetation treatments and other authorized activities , as well as unauthorized travel, could cause short-term displacement of wildlife and short-term increases in soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Decreases in the quantity and quality of forage could also result from treatments. Any facility developments, including recreation facilities, livestock water and other range improvements, and utility and road facilities could result in increased soil erosion. Changes in the level of recreational visitation and associated duration and patterns of use could result in increased conflicts between users and unanticipated changes in resource conditions. Large-scale, stand-replacing wildland fires expected to occur within the planning area over the life of the plan could quickly change the scenic quality of the landscape without regard to visual resource objectives. Scarring of the landscape could also result from unauthorized cross-country travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040153, Draft EIS--407 pages, Appendices--219 pages, Map Supplement, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-04/003+1610
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Montana
KW  - Dillon Resource Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354098?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER SIUSLAW LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE RESTORATION PLAN, LANE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - UPPER SIUSLAW LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE RESTORATION PLAN, LANE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 36352291; 10712-040157_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a forest and aquatic ecosystem restoration plan for public lands within a late-successional reserve (LSR) in the Coast Range Mountains west of Eugene in Lane and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The plan would provide for a 10-year management approach and specific actions needed to achieve the LSR goals set out in the Northwest Forest Plan. The LSR lies almost entirely within the Siuslaw River basin in the Oregon Coast Province, with a very small portion located in the Umpqua River basin. The portion of the LSR addressed by the proposed action encompasses 24,400 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The planning area extends from the eastern edge of the LSR just west of the Lorane Valley, to Oxbow Creek. The northern boundary is defined by the ridge between the Suislaw and Wolf creek watersheds. The southern boundary is defined by the boundary between the Eugene and Roseburg districts, which approximates the ridge between the Suislaw and Umpqua River basins. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to public access resulting from road management actions, the extent of new road construction necessary, the level of risk to existing late-successional forest stands from restoration activities, the impact of thinning on late-successional forest structure, the impacts of restoration on federally protected species (marbled murrelet, northern spotten owl, and Coho salmon), the spread of noxious weeds, and the economics of restoration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in this draft EIS; this abbreviated final EIS provides only comments on the draft EIS and responses to those comments. The preferred alternative (Alternative D), which emphasizes the protection and enhancement of habitat for federally protected species, would complete all 3,100 acres of commercial thinning within the next 10 years. Riparian stands would be thinned without timber removal. Instream woody debris structures would be constructed, and some structures would be cabled for stability. Alternative D would decommission eroding roads and roads in or adjacent to late-successional forest. new road construction would be limited to short, temporary spur roads. Silvicultural treatments would incur $920,000 in contract costs and $5.5 million in BLM staff costs. Decommissioning of 45 miles of road would incur $675,000 in contract costs and $450,000 in BLM staff costs. Instream restoration activities would incur $80,000 in contract costs and $40,000 in BLM staff costs. Replacing culverts would incur $790,000 in contract costs and $370,000 n BLM staff costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect and enhance the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, foster the development of late-successional forest structure and composition in plantations and young forests, and reconnect streams channels to their riparian zones and upslope areas. The moderate revenues resulting from the plan would exceed implementation costs. Commercial thinning would generate $11.6 million in revenue over the 10-year planning period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though the preferred alternative would eecommission a moderate length of roads, the alternative would result in the construction of new road which, along with timber management activities, would result in the disturbance of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Management activities would slow the development of spotted owl dispersal habitat, although activities would always maintain the current level of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0058D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040157, Final EIS--46 pages, Draft EIS--284 pages and maps, April 1, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/003+1792
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Analyses
KW  - Streams
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352291?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+SIUSLAW+LATE-SUCCESSIONAL+RESERVE+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+LANE+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+SIUSLAW+LATE-SUCCESSIONAL+RESERVE+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+LANE+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ARROWHEAD-WESTON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING OF THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 36439119; 10701
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to allow the construction of a transmission line crossing of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in Washburn County, Wisconsin is proposed, The crossing would be part of the Arrowhead-Weston Electric Transmission Line Project, to be undertaken by the applicants (Minnesota Power, the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and the American Transmission Company). The transmission line would extend 220 miles from Duluth, Minnesota to Wausau, Wisconsin. The crossing would be located approximately 10 five miles west of the town of Hayward near the community of Stinnet. The applicants' request includes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5). The applicant's preferred river crossing alternative (Alternative 1), which is also the federally preferred alternative, would involve approximately 6,000 of land extending from US 63 to Townline Road, of which 4,500 feet is part of the designated riverway and 1,500 feet is private property located immediately north of the riverway. The 1,500-foot segment of private property was included in the application since three of the river crossing alternatives would include the construction of an access road across this segment. The width of the river crossing rights-of-way (ROW) request area includes the existing 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line ROW and additional width necessary for construction of each of the alternatives. The preferred alternative would provide for the construction of double-circuit, alternating current, 161- and 345-kV transmission lines supported by 130- to 150-foot single-shaft steel structures. The crossing would require nine 70-foot wooden H-frame structures associated with the existing 161-kV transmission line would be removed and eight single-shaft steel structures would be erected to replace them. Nine overhead conductors and two shield wires would cross the affected area. One of the two shield wires would be an optical ground wire. This option would require 20 feet of additional ROW for construction and operation. Hence, the overall ROW width would be approximately 120 feet. Due to the proposed alignment of the new ROW centerline 14 feet to the west of the existing centerline, the easternmost four feet of the existing ROW would not be part of the new ROW. Construction activities would be undertaken in 2006 and continue for two to 12 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for completion of the transmission line in the vicinity of the river, ensuring the provision of power to the regional electricity grid, thereby supporting the continued economic growth of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 6.79 acres of land, and 0.01 acre of maintenance/operation disturbance would continue following construction. The project would have a reclainable surface (i.e., temporary disturbance area that would be reclaimed following construction) of 6.78 acres. The cleared ROW, transmission line and the steet-shaft structures would significantly alter the visual integrity of the scenic riverway, degrading the recreational experience of recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040146, 871 pages and maps, March 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-09
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARROWHEAD-WESTON+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+CROSSING+OF+THE+ST.+CROIX+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAY%2C+WASHBURN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ARROWHEAD-WESTON+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+CROSSING+OF+THE+ST.+CROIX+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAY%2C+WASHBURN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO.
AN  - 36355267; 10698-040143_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historic Site, Lucas County, Ohio is proposed. The battlefield and fort sites were established as an affiliated area of the National Park System of the Toledo Area in 1999. The park consists of three units, namely, the battlefield, the Fallen Timbers State Monument, and the fort. The Battle of Fallen Timbers played an important role in the history of the United States and the opening of the northwest frontier. The battle was the culminating event that demonstrated the tenacity of the American people in their quest for western expansion and the struggle for dominance in the Old Northwest Territory. The associated events resulted in the dispossession of American Indian tribes and a loss of colonial territory for the British military and settlers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would preserve resources, with an emphasis on protecting cultural resources and interpreting historic events associated with the sites. Visitor experiences would be geard toward learning about the sites. Most interpretation would take place at the edges of historic resources in order to ensure their preservation. Native vegetation at the battlefield site would be allowed to revert to species types more typical of those that existed in 1794. Alternative C would strike a balance between resource preservation and visitor experience. While historic resources would be protected, visitors would have access to more of the battlefield and the fort, encouraging them to become immersed in the interpretive and historical experience. Alternative D would establish an interpretive network of sites. Historic resources would be protected, and the historical importance of each unit would be presented through various interpretive media, with a small visitor center provided at each unit. Visitors would be encouraged to visit other important historic sites in the region. Under all action alternatives, all park units would be linked via walking /biking trails, a waterway connection on the Maumee River, and public transportation facilities. Cost of implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $3.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve cultural resources and reestablish natural vegetative conditions. Visitor experience would be enhanced as a result of the recreation of the historical appearance of the battlefield, provision of in-depth interpretive programs, and establishment of links between the three units. The plan would prevent potentially major, adverse impacts to archaeological and historic resources at the battlefield and the fort. The involvement of local groups in park-related programs would foster a greater sense of stewardship, encourage more community involvement, and improve interpretive programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and water quality would occur during construction of site facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-94.
JF  - EPA number: 040143, pages, March 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
EP  - ages, March 26
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-08
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Fallen Timbers Battlefield
KW  - Fort Miamis National Historic Site
KW  - Ohio
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-164, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355267?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FALLEN+TIMBERS+BATTLEFIELD+AND+FORT+MIAMIS+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LUCAS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=FALLEN+TIMBERS+BATTLEFIELD+AND+FORT+MIAMIS+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LUCAS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Toledo, Ohio; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ARROWHEAD-WESTON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING OF THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ARROWHEAD-WESTON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING OF THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 36352331; 10701-040146_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to allow the construction of a transmission line crossing of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in Washburn County, Wisconsin is proposed, The crossing would be part of the Arrowhead-Weston Electric Transmission Line Project, to be undertaken by the applicants (Minnesota Power, the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and the American Transmission Company). The transmission line would extend 220 miles from Duluth, Minnesota to Wausau, Wisconsin. The crossing would be located approximately 10 five miles west of the town of Hayward near the community of Stinnet. The applicants' request includes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5). The applicant's preferred river crossing alternative (Alternative 1), which is also the federally preferred alternative, would involve approximately 6,000 of land extending from US 63 to Townline Road, of which 4,500 feet is part of the designated riverway and 1,500 feet is private property located immediately north of the riverway. The 1,500-foot segment of private property was included in the application since three of the river crossing alternatives would include the construction of an access road across this segment. The width of the river crossing rights-of-way (ROW) request area includes the existing 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line ROW and additional width necessary for construction of each of the alternatives. The preferred alternative would provide for the construction of double-circuit, alternating current, 161- and 345-kV transmission lines supported by 130- to 150-foot single-shaft steel structures. The crossing would require nine 70-foot wooden H-frame structures associated with the existing 161-kV transmission line would be removed and eight single-shaft steel structures would be erected to replace them. Nine overhead conductors and two shield wires would cross the affected area. One of the two shield wires would be an optical ground wire. This option would require 20 feet of additional ROW for construction and operation. Hence, the overall ROW width would be approximately 120 feet. Due to the proposed alignment of the new ROW centerline 14 feet to the west of the existing centerline, the easternmost four feet of the existing ROW would not be part of the new ROW. Construction activities would be undertaken in 2006 and continue for two to 12 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for completion of the transmission line in the vicinity of the river, ensuring the provision of power to the regional electricity grid, thereby supporting the continued economic growth of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 6.79 acres of land, and 0.01 acre of maintenance/operation disturbance would continue following construction. The project would have a reclainable surface (i.e., temporary disturbance area that would be reclaimed following construction) of 6.78 acres. The cleared ROW, transmission line and the steet-shaft structures would significantly alter the visual integrity of the scenic riverway, degrading the recreational experience of recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040146, 871 pages and maps, March 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-09
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352331?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARROWHEAD-WESTON+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+CROSSING+OF+THE+ST.+CROIX+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAY%2C+WASHBURN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ARROWHEAD-WESTON+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+CROSSING+OF+THE+ST.+CROIX+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAY%2C+WASHBURN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO.
AN  - 16345487; 10698
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historic Site, Lucas County, Ohio is proposed. The battlefield and fort sites were established as an affiliated area of the National Park System of the Toledo Area in 1999. The park consists of three units, namely, the battlefield, the Fallen Timbers State Monument, and the fort. The Battle of Fallen Timbers played an important role in the history of the United States and the opening of the northwest frontier. The battle was the culminating event that demonstrated the tenacity of the American people in their quest for western expansion and the struggle for dominance in the Old Northwest Territory. The associated events resulted in the dispossession of American Indian tribes and a loss of colonial territory for the British military and settlers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would preserve resources, with an emphasis on protecting cultural resources and interpreting historic events associated with the sites. Visitor experiences would be geard toward learning about the sites. Most interpretation would take place at the edges of historic resources in order to ensure their preservation. Native vegetation at the battlefield site would be allowed to revert to species types more typical of those that existed in 1794. Alternative C would strike a balance between resource preservation and visitor experience. While historic resources would be protected, visitors would have access to more of the battlefield and the fort, encouraging them to become immersed in the interpretive and historical experience. Alternative D would establish an interpretive network of sites. Historic resources would be protected, and the historical importance of each unit would be presented through various interpretive media, with a small visitor center provided at each unit. Visitors would be encouraged to visit other important historic sites in the region. Under all action alternatives, all park units would be linked via walking /biking trails, a waterway connection on the Maumee River, and public transportation facilities. Cost of implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $3.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would preserve cultural resources and reestablish natural vegetative conditions. Visitor experience would be enhanced as a result of the recreation of the historical appearance of the battlefield, provision of in-depth interpretive programs, and establishment of links between the three units. The plan would prevent potentially major, adverse impacts to archaeological and historic resources at the battlefield and the fort. The involvement of local groups in park-related programs would foster a greater sense of stewardship, encourage more community involvement, and improve interpretive programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and water quality would occur during construction of site facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-94.
JF  - EPA number: 040143, pages, March 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
EP  - ages, March 26
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-08
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Fallen Timbers Battlefield
KW  - Fort Miamis National Historic Site
KW  - Ohio
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-164, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345487?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FALLEN+TIMBERS+BATTLEFIELD+AND+FORT+MIAMIS+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LUCAS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=FALLEN+TIMBERS+BATTLEFIELD+AND+FORT+MIAMIS+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LUCAS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Toledo, Ohio; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE WILDERNESS STUDY, LAKE SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE WILDERNESS STUDY, LAKE SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 36354257; 10697-040142_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The designation of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (AINL) in Ashland and Bayfield counties, Wisconsin as a wilderness within the National Wilderness System is proposed. The 69,372-acre AINL is locate don the tip of Bayfield Peninsula in northern Wisconsin and includes 21 islands on Lake Superior and a narrow 12-mile strip of mainland shoreline. The islands range in size from three-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves, spectacular sea caves, remnant old-growth forests, a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish, and the largest collection of lighthouses in the national park system. The islands have both historical and archaeological significance. Approximately 42,160 acres within the park have been designated as suitable for consideration as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would maintain the lakeshore area outside the National Wilderness System are considered in this final EIS. A1lternative B would designate 94 percent of the AINL as wildnerness, excluding only the areas determined to be unsuitable in all other action alternatives. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would designate 90 percent of the AINL as wilderness. Basswood, Sand, and Long islands would not be included in the wilderness designations. Altogether approximately 33,500 of the park's 42,160 land base would be designated as wilderness. Alternative D would limit wilderness designation to remote areas covering approximately 55 percent of the park's land base, including those undeveloped and isolated areas that provide the best opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation during the busy summer season; these areas are not on the current tour boat route and generally lie further from the mainland than the more extensively visited areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would provide additional protection to the park's pristine wildland values, ensuring its preservation for present and future generations. The preferred alternative would provide the best mix of beneficial impacts, while maintaining the integrity of the wilderness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wilderness designation would restrict the flexibility of managers of the AINL significantly as any management action that would result in alteration of wilderness values would be prohibited. This situation would particularly reduce the level of protection afforded cultural resource sites within the designated areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0450D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040142, 217 pages, March 25, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-05
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Beaches
KW  - Forests
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE WILDERNESS STUDY, LAKE SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 15228851; 10697
AB  - PURPOSE: The designation of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (AINL) in Ashland and Bayfield counties, Wisconsin as a wilderness within the National Wilderness System is proposed. The 69,372-acre AINL is locate don the tip of Bayfield Peninsula in northern Wisconsin and includes 21 islands on Lake Superior and a narrow 12-mile strip of mainland shoreline. The islands range in size from three-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves, spectacular sea caves, remnant old-growth forests, a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish, and the largest collection of lighthouses in the national park system. The islands have both historical and archaeological significance. Approximately 42,160 acres within the park have been designated as suitable for consideration as wilderness. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would maintain the lakeshore area outside the National Wilderness System are considered in this final EIS. A1lternative B would designate 94 percent of the AINL as wildnerness, excluding only the areas determined to be unsuitable in all other action alternatives. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would designate 90 percent of the AINL as wilderness. Basswood, Sand, and Long islands would not be included in the wilderness designations. Altogether approximately 33,500 of the park's 42,160 land base would be designated as wilderness. Alternative D would limit wilderness designation to remote areas covering approximately 55 percent of the park's land base, including those undeveloped and isolated areas that provide the best opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation during the busy summer season; these areas are not on the current tour boat route and generally lie further from the mainland than the more extensively visited areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would provide additional protection to the park's pristine wildland values, ensuring its preservation for present and future generations. The preferred alternative would provide the best mix of beneficial impacts, while maintaining the integrity of the wilderness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wilderness designation would restrict the flexibility of managers of the AINL significantly as any management action that would result in alteration of wilderness values would be prohibited. This situation would particularly reduce the level of protection afforded cultural resource sites within the designated areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0450D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040142, 217 pages, March 25, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-05
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Beaches
KW  - Forests
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
KW  - Lake Superior
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15228851?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1991). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1991).
AN  - 36362085; 10684-040127_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control master plan for the Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The project area encompasses 1,056 square miles of southeastern Nevada, including portions of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and unincorporated portions of Clark County. The majority of Clark County urban development lies within the Las Vegas Valley, a flood-prone area that has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage due to flooding since the turn of the 20th Century. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The proposed action would provide for a series of detention basins located around the perimeter of currently urbanized areas. These basins, and associated dikes, would be designed to collect flood flows and release the flows at metered rates that could be accommodated by downstream conveyance facilities. The plan would involve the continued development of detention basins to reduce peak flows to levels that can be handled by the existing downstream conveyance system with little or no major capacity improvements. These improvements are assessed with respect to the environmental consequences at the programmatic level in this supplemental EIS. Specific project assessments would be implemented on a case-by-case basis using tools developed in this and other documents. In addition to the proposed plan, this supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed updated flood control master plan would help to alleviate flood-related problems, preventing damage to property and decreasing threats to human health and safety. Decreases in perennial low flows in unlined channels due to shallow groundwater seeps would be mitigated due to the lining of channels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would encounter difficulties associated with unstable soils and subsidence in the area. These activities would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The project facilities would lie within an area subject to seismic activity and characterized by unstable slopes. Fossiliferous alluvial units under the valley floor could be disturbed. Flow depths and velocities in downstream reaches could reach dangerous velocities. Lining of channels would reduce groundwater recharge. The development of basins and related facilities would displace desert vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased development in the area due to the reduction of the threat of flood would displace yet more wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0471D, Volume 14, Number 6 and 91-0123F, Volume 15, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040127, 417 pages and maps, March 17, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-15
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362085?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.title=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1991).
AN  - 16357142; 10684
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control master plan for the Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The project area encompasses 1,056 square miles of southeastern Nevada, including portions of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and unincorporated portions of Clark County. The majority of Clark County urban development lies within the Las Vegas Valley, a flood-prone area that has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage due to flooding since the turn of the 20th Century. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The proposed action would provide for a series of detention basins located around the perimeter of currently urbanized areas. These basins, and associated dikes, would be designed to collect flood flows and release the flows at metered rates that could be accommodated by downstream conveyance facilities. The plan would involve the continued development of detention basins to reduce peak flows to levels that can be handled by the existing downstream conveyance system with little or no major capacity improvements. These improvements are assessed with respect to the environmental consequences at the programmatic level in this supplemental EIS. Specific project assessments would be implemented on a case-by-case basis using tools developed in this and other documents. In addition to the proposed plan, this supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed updated flood control master plan would help to alleviate flood-related problems, preventing damage to property and decreasing threats to human health and safety. Decreases in perennial low flows in unlined channels due to shallow groundwater seeps would be mitigated due to the lining of channels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would encounter difficulties associated with unstable soils and subsidence in the area. These activities would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The project facilities would lie within an area subject to seismic activity and characterized by unstable slopes. Fossiliferous alluvial units under the valley floor could be disturbed. Flow depths and velocities in downstream reaches could reach dangerous velocities. Lining of channels would reduce groundwater recharge. The development of basins and related facilities would displace desert vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased development in the area due to the reduction of the threat of flood would displace yet more wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0471D, Volume 14, Number 6 and 91-0123F, Volume 15, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040127, 417 pages and maps, March 17, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-15
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357142?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.title=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY, CLEAR CREEK FEDERAL NUMBER 22-42 GAS EXPLORATION WELL, CASTLE VALLEY RIDGE, MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, FERRON/PRICE RANGER DISTRICT, CARBON AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY, CLEAR CREEK FEDERAL NUMBER 22-42 GAS EXPLORATION WELL, CASTLE VALLEY RIDGE, MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, FERRON/PRICE RANGER DISTRICT, CARBON AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36354153; 10682-040125_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of an application for permit to drill (APD) to the Prima Oil and Gas Company (Prima) to drill and exploratory natural gas well on Castle Valley Ridge (Federal Oil and Gas Lease UTU-77087) in the Ferron/Price Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The APD would include a surface use plan of operations (SUPO), with mitigation measures needed to minimize impacts to natural resources consistent with the lease, applicable laws and regulations, and the forest management plan. The site would be located approximately four miles south-southeast of the town of Clear Creek. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with roadless area protection, visual aesthetics and other landscape issues, recreation resources, rangeland and other vegetation resources, noxious weeds, and wildlife habitat. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would add the abovementioned mitigation measures to the applicant's drilling proposal to address the key issues identified during scoping. The proposed project would require the construction of 1.1 miles of new road the improvement of 1.9 miles of Nuck-Woodward Road (Forest Road (FR) 50110). Access would be provided by FR 50110 out of Clear Creek. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would allow Prima to assess the economic recoverability of potential gas reserves in the Ferron Sandstone member of the Mancos Shale Formation. This would enable Prima to proceed with its gas exploration program, consistent with the rights granted by its lease. The exploration drilling program would provide the structural, stratigraphic, and reservoir data necessary for the development of a suitable plan to allow the company to economically and efficiently recover the gas reserves in the lease area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 15 acres of land, including disturbances due to well site activities and topsoil storage areas. The land disturbance would extend for one field season, unless the well goes into production, in which case disturbance would go on for 20 to 25 years. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0259D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040125, Final EIS--97 pages and maps, Record of Decision--19 pages and maps, March 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Manti-La Sal National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354153?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMA+OIL+AND+GAS+COMPANY%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+FEDERAL+NUMBER+22-42+GAS+EXPLORATION+WELL%2C+CASTLE+VALLEY+RIDGE%2C+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+FERRON%2FPRICE+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+CARBON+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PRIMA+OIL+AND+GAS+COMPANY%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+FEDERAL+NUMBER+22-42+GAS+EXPLORATION+WELL%2C+CASTLE+VALLEY+RIDGE%2C+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+FERRON%2FPRICE+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+CARBON+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Price, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY, CLEAR CREEK FEDERAL NUMBER 22-42 GAS EXPLORATION WELL, CASTLE VALLEY RIDGE, MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, FERRON/PRICE RANGER DISTRICT, CARBON AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 16357593; 10682
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of an application for permit to drill (APD) to the Prima Oil and Gas Company (Prima) to drill and exploratory natural gas well on Castle Valley Ridge (Federal Oil and Gas Lease UTU-77087) in the Ferron/Price Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The APD would include a surface use plan of operations (SUPO), with mitigation measures needed to minimize impacts to natural resources consistent with the lease, applicable laws and regulations, and the forest management plan. The site would be located approximately four miles south-southeast of the town of Clear Creek. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with roadless area protection, visual aesthetics and other landscape issues, recreation resources, rangeland and other vegetation resources, noxious weeds, and wildlife habitat. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would add the abovementioned mitigation measures to the applicant's drilling proposal to address the key issues identified during scoping. The proposed project would require the construction of 1.1 miles of new road the improvement of 1.9 miles of Nuck-Woodward Road (Forest Road (FR) 50110). Access would be provided by FR 50110 out of Clear Creek. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would allow Prima to assess the economic recoverability of potential gas reserves in the Ferron Sandstone member of the Mancos Shale Formation. This would enable Prima to proceed with its gas exploration program, consistent with the rights granted by its lease. The exploration drilling program would provide the structural, stratigraphic, and reservoir data necessary for the development of a suitable plan to allow the company to economically and efficiently recover the gas reserves in the lease area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 15 acres of land, including disturbances due to well site activities and topsoil storage areas. The land disturbance would extend for one field season, unless the well goes into production, in which case disturbance would go on for 20 to 25 years. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0259D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040125, Final EIS--97 pages and maps, Record of Decision--19 pages and maps, March 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Manti-La Sal National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357593?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMA+OIL+AND+GAS+COMPANY%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+FEDERAL+NUMBER+22-42+GAS+EXPLORATION+WELL%2C+CASTLE+VALLEY+RIDGE%2C+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+FERRON%2FPRICE+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+CARBON+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PRIMA+OIL+AND+GAS+COMPANY%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+FEDERAL+NUMBER+22-42+GAS+EXPLORATION+WELL%2C+CASTLE+VALLEY+RIDGE%2C+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+FERRON%2FPRICE+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+CARBON+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Price, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, BREWSTER AND TERRELL COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36436399; 11337
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River in Brewster and Terrell counties, Texas is proposed. In 1978, a 196-mile corridor along the American bank of the river in the Chihuahua Desert was designated at part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System due to its outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, and recreational values. The National Park Service (NPS) at Big Bend National Park is responsible for managing the wild and scenic river. Under the preferred alternative, the protection of natural and cultural resources would be emphasized, as would visitor experience. A permanent boundary for the wild and scenic river would be established to reflect the river's outstandingly remarkable values. The NPS would negotiate individual agreements with each nonfederal landowner to specify the rights and responsibilities of the National Park Service and each landowner. The NPS would recommend to Congress that the upper segment of the Rio Brand in Big Bend National Park be designated as wild and scenic, bringing the total federal and state ownership along the river to more than 50 percent. NPS assistance would be available to landowners to protect outstandingly remarkable values on their land. An increase in Big Bend National Park staff would be included in the proposed action. In addition to the proposed management plan, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the management regime established 25 years ago. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance resource protection within the river corridor and offer high-quality visitor experiences. Landowner agreements would foster a cooperative relationship, allowing the NPS to play a role in protecting resources and values on nonfederal lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0114D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040603, 176 pages, March 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-56
KW  - Chihuahua Desert
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Big Bend National Park
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436399?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+GRANDE+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER%2C+BREWSTER+AND+TERRELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=RIO+GRANDE+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER%2C+BREWSTER+AND+TERRELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, BREWSTER AND TERRELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, BREWSTER AND TERRELL COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36367012; 11337-040603_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River in Brewster and Terrell counties, Texas is proposed. In 1978, a 196-mile corridor along the American bank of the river in the Chihuahua Desert was designated at part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System due to its outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, and recreational values. The National Park Service (NPS) at Big Bend National Park is responsible for managing the wild and scenic river. Under the preferred alternative, the protection of natural and cultural resources would be emphasized, as would visitor experience. A permanent boundary for the wild and scenic river would be established to reflect the river's outstandingly remarkable values. The NPS would negotiate individual agreements with each nonfederal landowner to specify the rights and responsibilities of the National Park Service and each landowner. The NPS would recommend to Congress that the upper segment of the Rio Brand in Big Bend National Park be designated as wild and scenic, bringing the total federal and state ownership along the river to more than 50 percent. NPS assistance would be available to landowners to protect outstandingly remarkable values on their land. An increase in Big Bend National Park staff would be included in the proposed action. In addition to the proposed management plan, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the management regime established 25 years ago. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance resource protection within the river corridor and offer high-quality visitor experiences. Landowner agreements would foster a cooperative relationship, allowing the NPS to play a role in protecting resources and values on nonfederal lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0114D, Volume 28, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040603, 176 pages, March 10, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-56
KW  - Chihuahua Desert
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Big Bend National Park
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367012?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+GRANDE+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER%2C+BREWSTER+AND+TERRELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=RIO+GRANDE+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER%2C+BREWSTER+AND+TERRELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000
T2  - USGS circ. 1268
AN  - 58884398; 2004-0708190
AB  - Estimates for total water use, public supply, domestic, irrigation, livestock, aquaculture, industrial, mining, thermoelectric power, and trends for 1950-2000. Also available in print (ISBN 0-607-97818-X).
JF  - United States Geological Survey, March 2004.
AU  - Hutson, Susan S
AU  - and others
Y1  - 2004/03//
PY  - 2004
DA  - March 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - United States -- Environmental conditions -- Statistics
KW  - Water supply -- United States -- Statistics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/58884398?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Hutson%2C+Susan+S%3Band+others&rft.aulast=Hutson&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Estimated+use+of+water+in+the+United+States+in+2000&rft.title=Estimated+use+of+water+in+the+United+States+in+2000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/pdf/circular1268.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Geol Survey
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), chart(s), il(s), map(s), table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 900616248; 10652-7_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: An increase in the tempo of military test and evaluation and operational training activities at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California is proposed. NAWS is located in the Western Mojave Desert of southern California, approximately 150 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The station, composed of the North Range and the South Range, encompasses approximately 1,700 square miles and is located in portions of Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties. The NAWS land ranges, operated by the Department of the Navy for more than 50 years, provide a safe, secure, highly instrumented volume of land and airspace in which to conduct controlled tests and operationally realistic training. Proposed changes to military operations would include increases in the type and tempo of ongoing test and evaluation, training, and support operations. Increases in military operations would be phased over five years according to operational needs and include expansion of both subsonic and supersonic range flight operations, airfield flight operations, and range ground operations, including target and test site use and ground troop training type, tempo, and locations. Non-military uses requiring access to NAWS-administered lands would continue to be accommodated at NAWS. Public access would continue to be limited to specific areas on a case-by-case basis due to established safety and security requirements. Limited public access to designated areas would continue to be permitted according to the terms and conditions granted by the NAWS commanding officer. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would involve a moderate expansion in the tempo of the subject activities at the NAWS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed increase in activity, and associated environmental mitigation measures, at the NWAS would help ensure the preparedness of U.S. naval forces in the event of war and achieve compliance with federal legislation with respect to preservation and protection of the desert ecology of the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased flight operations would increase the area exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards and the duration of such exposures. A three-acre area zones for residential use would be affected by increased aircraft noise levels. LEGAL MANDATES: California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.) and Sikes Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 607a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0004D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040097, Volume I--621 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--425 pages, Volume III (Appendices)--471 pages, February 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - Military Operations (Navy)
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Weapon Systems
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Mojave Desert
KW  - Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake
KW  - California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Compliance
KW  - Sikes Act, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616248?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridcrest, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 900616197; 10652-7_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: An increase in the tempo of military test and evaluation and operational training activities at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California is proposed. NAWS is located in the Western Mojave Desert of southern California, approximately 150 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The station, composed of the North Range and the South Range, encompasses approximately 1,700 square miles and is located in portions of Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties. The NAWS land ranges, operated by the Department of the Navy for more than 50 years, provide a safe, secure, highly instrumented volume of land and airspace in which to conduct controlled tests and operationally realistic training. Proposed changes to military operations would include increases in the type and tempo of ongoing test and evaluation, training, and support operations. Increases in military operations would be phased over five years according to operational needs and include expansion of both subsonic and supersonic range flight operations, airfield flight operations, and range ground operations, including target and test site use and ground troop training type, tempo, and locations. Non-military uses requiring access to NAWS-administered lands would continue to be accommodated at NAWS. Public access would continue to be limited to specific areas on a case-by-case basis due to established safety and security requirements. Limited public access to designated areas would continue to be permitted according to the terms and conditions granted by the NAWS commanding officer. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would involve a moderate expansion in the tempo of the subject activities at the NAWS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed increase in activity, and associated environmental mitigation measures, at the NWAS would help ensure the preparedness of U.S. naval forces in the event of war and achieve compliance with federal legislation with respect to preservation and protection of the desert ecology of the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased flight operations would increase the area exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards and the duration of such exposures. A three-acre area zones for residential use would be affected by increased aircraft noise levels. LEGAL MANDATES: California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.) and Sikes Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 607a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0004D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040097, Volume I--621 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--425 pages, Volume III (Appendices)--471 pages, February 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - Military Operations (Navy)
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Weapon Systems
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Mojave Desert
KW  - Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake
KW  - California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Compliance
KW  - Sikes Act, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616197?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridcrest, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 900615894; 10652-7_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: An increase in the tempo of military test and evaluation and operational training activities at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California is proposed. NAWS is located in the Western Mojave Desert of southern California, approximately 150 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The station, composed of the North Range and the South Range, encompasses approximately 1,700 square miles and is located in portions of Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties. The NAWS land ranges, operated by the Department of the Navy for more than 50 years, provide a safe, secure, highly instrumented volume of land and airspace in which to conduct controlled tests and operationally realistic training. Proposed changes to military operations would include increases in the type and tempo of ongoing test and evaluation, training, and support operations. Increases in military operations would be phased over five years according to operational needs and include expansion of both subsonic and supersonic range flight operations, airfield flight operations, and range ground operations, including target and test site use and ground troop training type, tempo, and locations. Non-military uses requiring access to NAWS-administered lands would continue to be accommodated at NAWS. Public access would continue to be limited to specific areas on a case-by-case basis due to established safety and security requirements. Limited public access to designated areas would continue to be permitted according to the terms and conditions granted by the NAWS commanding officer. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would involve a moderate expansion in the tempo of the subject activities at the NAWS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed increase in activity, and associated environmental mitigation measures, at the NWAS would help ensure the preparedness of U.S. naval forces in the event of war and achieve compliance with federal legislation with respect to preservation and protection of the desert ecology of the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased flight operations would increase the area exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards and the duration of such exposures. A three-acre area zones for residential use would be affected by increased aircraft noise levels. LEGAL MANDATES: California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.) and Sikes Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 607a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0004D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040097, Volume I--621 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--425 pages, Volume III (Appendices)--471 pages, February 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - Military Operations (Navy)
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Weapon Systems
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Mojave Desert
KW  - Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake
KW  - California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Compliance
KW  - Sikes Act, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615894?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridcrest, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MILITARY OPERATIONAL INCREASES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSOCIATED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS AIR STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36412706; 10652
AB  - PURPOSE: An increase in the tempo of military test and evaluation and operational training activities at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California is proposed. NAWS is located in the Western Mojave Desert of southern California, approximately 150 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The station, composed of the North Range and the South Range, encompasses approximately 1,700 square miles and is located in portions of Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties. The NAWS land ranges, operated by the Department of the Navy for more than 50 years, provide a safe, secure, highly instrumented volume of land and airspace in which to conduct controlled tests and operationally realistic training. Proposed changes to military operations would include increases in the type and tempo of ongoing test and evaluation, training, and support operations. Increases in military operations would be phased over five years according to operational needs and include expansion of both subsonic and supersonic range flight operations, airfield flight operations, and range ground operations, including target and test site use and ground troop training type, tempo, and locations. Non-military uses requiring access to NAWS-administered lands would continue to be accommodated at NAWS. Public access would continue to be limited to specific areas on a case-by-case basis due to established safety and security requirements. Limited public access to designated areas would continue to be permitted according to the terms and conditions granted by the NAWS commanding officer. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would involve a moderate expansion in the tempo of the subject activities at the NAWS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed increase in activity, and associated environmental mitigation measures, at the NWAS would help ensure the preparedness of U.S. naval forces in the event of war and achieve compliance with federal legislation with respect to preservation and protection of the desert ecology of the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased flight operations would increase the area exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards and the duration of such exposures. A three-acre area zones for residential use would be affected by increased aircraft noise levels. LEGAL MANDATES: California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.) and Sikes Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 607a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0004D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040097, Volume I--621 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--425 pages, Volume III (Appendices)--471 pages, February 26, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - Military Operations (Navy)
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Weapon Systems
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Mojave Desert
KW  - Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake
KW  - California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Compliance
KW  - Sikes Act, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412706?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MILITARY+OPERATIONAL+INCREASES+AND+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+ASSOCIATED+COMPREHENSIVE+LAND+USE+AND+INTEGRATED+NATURAL+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS%2C+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+AIR+STATION+CHINA+LAKE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridcrest, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 26, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY AND LONG-TERM CONTRACT EXECUTION, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT.
AN  - 16357200; 10627
AB  - PURPOSE: The allocation of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water and long-term contract execution under the CAP are proposed. The purpose of the action is to allocate the remaining available CAP water in a manner that would facilitate the resolution of outstanding Indian water rights claims in Arizona. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Three major issues were considered in developing the alternatives: (1) restrictions or conditions that apply to any CAP water made available for reallocation as a result of authorizing legislation and/or water settlement agreements; (2) amounts of water failed to be sufficient to facilitate resolution of water rights claims of the tribes being actively negotiated; and (3) water needs of the non-Indian sector. The proposed action (Settlement Alternative) would involve in the allocation of remaining CAP water consistent with both the settlement stipulation and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) and ongoing negotiations among the United States, CAWCD, Gila River Indian Community, the state of Arizona, and other affected parties, including other Indian tribes. The remaining available water would be allocated as follows: 65,647 acre-feet per year (afa) of currently unallocated priority municipal and industrial (M&I) water would be allocated and contracted to M&I entities consistent with state recommendations; 17,000 afa of M&I priority water currently contracted to ASARCO would be voluntarily transferred to GRIC; 47,918 afa currently held by the Bureau of Reclamation would be used to facilitate Indian water rights claims; all allocations of NIA-priority water would be converted to fixed volumes based on a total CAP water supply of 1.4 million afa; and the manner in which shortages would allocated within the CAP would be such that when CAP water supply is less than the total Indian water plus the total M&I water, both M&I and Indian CAP water users would begin to take shortages based on the proportions contemplated (64 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Specific afa stipulations would be imposed on allocations of NIA-priority water to be converted to fixed volumes. CAP allocations are provided in the EIS for each interested entity under each alternative. The period for public review of this draft EIS has been extended as of the EPA date indicated above. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A final allocation of remaining available CAP water and execution of contracts for delivery of that water would provide a level of certainty to all entities regarding available future water supplies. This, in turn, would enable Arizona water users, Indian and non-Indian alike, to develop and implement the systems and infrastructure necessary to utilize those water supplies to meet future water demands and serve tribal and other community needs. Employment and other economic indicators for the Indian sector would probably show significant improvement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: If the CAP water supply was fully used, significant negative groundwater level changes would be expected. The level of effluent discharge from existing wastewater treatment plants would be likely to continue at current or increased rates under all alternatives. Socioeconomic impacts would include increasing prices for M&I water, reduction in agricultural output in the NIA sector, a deficit in CAP repayments to the federal government, Development allowed in the M&I and agricultural sectors would result in conversion of agricultural land and native desert to urban uses and in conversion of native desert to agricultural uses, potentially affecting 10 threatened or endangered species. Urban and agricultural development could also affect archaeologic sites. An estimated 240,00 acres of desert land and 68,159 acres of farmland would be urbanized within the planning areas of the 21 potentially affected M&I entities. An additional 46,900 acres would be likely to become urbanized within the NIA irrigation districts. Long-term effects of urbanization would have significant impacts on air quality in the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (P.L. 70-642) and Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-537).
JF  - EPA number: 000213, Draft EIS--181 pages, Technical Appendices A-H--401, Technical Appendices I-P--522 pages, February 19, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 00-24
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Urban Development
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357200?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLOCATION+OF+WATER+SUPPLY+AND+LONG-TERM+CONTRACT+EXECUTION%2C+CENTRAL+ARIZONA+PROJECT.&rft.title=ALLOCATION+OF+WATER+SUPPLY+AND+LONG-TERM+CONTRACT+EXECUTION%2C+CENTRAL+ARIZONA+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Preparation date: February 19, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36435141; 10624
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new fire management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tuscon vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,327 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,293-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. Historically, wildland fire occurred naturally throughout the higher elevations of the park, constituting an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure, increasing the potential for catastrophic wildland fire. The existing fire management program has been effective locally, but has not been able to restore large areas of the park to natural, fire-influenced conditions nor has it been able to keep more of the park from needing restoration. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. As a result, the incidence of catastrophic fire has increased in recent decades. The proposed treatments would be guided by restoration and maintenance target conditions, based upon the natural range of variability for park plant communities. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), which would perpetuate the existing fire management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would employ wildland fire for resource benefit, prescribed fire, non-fire treatments, and suppression to Fire Management Unit (FMU) 1 and total suppression in FMU 2. FMUs are areas of the park governed by distinct fire management strategies; boundaries are clear, and procedures are laid out in detail for each FMU. The major difference distinguishing the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative plans is the definition of FMUs. FMU 1 ranges in elevation from 4,000 feet (upper Sonoran zone) to 8,666 feet on top of Mica Mountain. FMU 2 is comprised to two separate tracks of land. The Rincon Mountain District below 4,000 feet contains 13,800 acres, approximately half of which is designated wilderness, and the entire Tuscon Mountain District, which contains 24,034 acres, with wilderness accounting for 13,200 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide a fire management plan that is more sensitive to ecological conditions, reduce the risk of fire to cultural resources through fuels reduction, reverse the adverse effects of past fire suppression and prevention activities, improve firefighter and public safety, and incorporate sound risk management practices. Forest health would improve, and the natural composition of the forest would be approximated. Additional protection would be provided to the habitat for federally protected species, including the gila topminnow, lesser long-nosed bat, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, Pima Indian mallow, trelease agave, needle-spine pineapple cactus, desert night-blooming cereus, thornber pincushion cactus, and tumamoc globeberry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Peregrine falcons habitat could suffer due to wildland fire in unprotected areas. Wildland fire and prescribed fire would destroy vegetation and degrade regional air quality over the short-term. Short-term area closures and restrictions would impede access by recreationists More than 7,000 gallons of various types of fuels would be consumed per year for prescribe fire. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040070, 227 pages, February 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Safety
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36361064; 10624-040070_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new fire management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tuscon vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,327 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,293-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. Historically, wildland fire occurred naturally throughout the higher elevations of the park, constituting an important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have led to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure, increasing the potential for catastrophic wildland fire. The existing fire management program has been effective locally, but has not been able to restore large areas of the park to natural, fire-influenced conditions nor has it been able to keep more of the park from needing restoration. The risk of catastrophic fire is highest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels have built up to hazardous levels. As a result, the incidence of catastrophic fire has increased in recent decades. The proposed treatments would be guided by restoration and maintenance target conditions, based upon the natural range of variability for park plant communities. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), which would perpetuate the existing fire management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would employ wildland fire for resource benefit, prescribed fire, non-fire treatments, and suppression to Fire Management Unit (FMU) 1 and total suppression in FMU 2. FMUs are areas of the park governed by distinct fire management strategies; boundaries are clear, and procedures are laid out in detail for each FMU. The major difference distinguishing the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative plans is the definition of FMUs. FMU 1 ranges in elevation from 4,000 feet (upper Sonoran zone) to 8,666 feet on top of Mica Mountain. FMU 2 is comprised to two separate tracks of land. The Rincon Mountain District below 4,000 feet contains 13,800 acres, approximately half of which is designated wilderness, and the entire Tuscon Mountain District, which contains 24,034 acres, with wilderness accounting for 13,200 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide a fire management plan that is more sensitive to ecological conditions, reduce the risk of fire to cultural resources through fuels reduction, reverse the adverse effects of past fire suppression and prevention activities, improve firefighter and public safety, and incorporate sound risk management practices. Forest health would improve, and the natural composition of the forest would be approximated. Additional protection would be provided to the habitat for federally protected species, including the gila topminnow, lesser long-nosed bat, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, Pima Indian mallow, trelease agave, needle-spine pineapple cactus, desert night-blooming cereus, thornber pincushion cactus, and tumamoc globeberry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Peregrine falcons habitat could suffer due to wildland fire in unprotected areas. Wildland fire and prescribed fire would destroy vegetation and degrade regional air quality over the short-term. Short-term area closures and restrictions would impede access by recreationists More than 7,000 gallons of various types of fuels would be consumed per year for prescribe fire. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040070, 227 pages, February 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 04-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Safety
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361064?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Mineral investigations in the Delta River mining district, East-Central Alaska, 2003
AN  - 51776430; 2005-001470
AB  - In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed the third year of the Delta River Mining District study. Investigators surveyed, mapped, or sampled 51 mineral occurrences in the 2.9-million-acre Delta River Mining District, which extends across the Alaska Range from Paxson to Delta Junction, in east-central Alaska. The BLM collected and analyzed 446 rock chip, placer, pan concentrate, and stream sediment samples during the investigation. Fieldwork for the Delta River Mineral study is scheduled to be completed in 2004 with a final report being produced in 2005.
JF  - BLM-Alaska Open File Report
AU  - Bean, Kirby W
AU  - Bittenbender, Peter E
AU  - Gensler, Edward C
AU  - Borhauer, Jeffrey L
Y1  - 2004/02//
PY  - 2004
DA  - February 2004
SP  - 54
EP  - 54, 1 sheet
PB  - Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Anchorage, AK
KW  - Type: colored site location map
KW  - United States
KW  - mineral exploration
KW  - stream sediments
KW  - mass spectra
KW  - infrared spectra
KW  - panning
KW  - Mount Hayes Quadrangle
KW  - whole rock
KW  - East-Central Alaska
KW  - sediments
KW  - spectra
KW  - geochemistry
KW  - soils
KW  - Delta River mining district
KW  - site location maps
KW  - atomic absorption spectra
KW  - ICP mass spectra
KW  - placers
KW  - detection
KW  - maps
KW  - geochemical methods
KW  - metal ores
KW  - Alaska
KW  - fluvial environment
KW  - 02C:Geochemistry of rocks, soils, and sediments
KW  - 27A:Economic geology, geology of ore deposits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51776430?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bean%2C+Kirby+W%3BBittenbender%2C+Peter+E%3BGensler%2C+Edward+C%3BBorhauer%2C+Jeffrey+L&rft.aulast=Bean&rft.aufirst=Kirby&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Mineral+investigations+in+the+Delta+River+mining+district%2C+East-Central+Alaska%2C+2003&rft.title=Mineral+investigations+in+the+Delta+River+mining+district%2C+East-Central+Alaska%2C+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/info/gen_pubs/ofr.html
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2005-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 6 tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #04510
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; atomic absorption spectra; Delta River mining district; detection; East-Central Alaska; fluvial environment; geochemical methods; geochemistry; ICP mass spectra; infrared spectra; maps; mass spectra; metal ores; mineral exploration; Mount Hayes Quadrangle; panning; placers; sediments; site location maps; soils; spectra; stream sediments; United States; whole rock
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Dissolved Gas and Fishery Investigations at Ridgway Dam - Phases 1, 2 and 3 Report
AN  - 19607563; 7322183
AB  - A brief summary is presented of the report "Dissolved Gas and Fishery Investigations at Ridgway Dam - Phases 1, 2 and 3 Report." Gas bubble trauma (GBT) in fish has been documented in the river below Ridgway reservoir for many years. Nitrogen gas levels have also been documented in the river since 1998. A dissolved gas survey in the reservoir was conducted as a part of this research project in June 2003. This report provides a compilation and analysis of historical and recent dissolved gas and temperature data with recommendations for possible solutions and is the final product of phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Science and Technology Research Project No. 581. The investigations regarding gas bubble disease in the fish are included in the fisheries section of the report. The fisheries information includes background of the historical fisheries data collection and stocking in the tailrace below Ridgway reservoir and results of the survey conducted in March 2003. The collecting of the historical information on the fisheries of the Uncompahgre River is an ongoing process, with further data expected from the Colorado Division of Wildlife records in the future. The fisheries survey conducted in March 2003 showed a percent occurrence of GBT (based on external examination of the species present) to range from 48% (Snake River Cutthroat) to 21% (Colorado River Cutthroat). Detailed gas measurements taken within the electrofishing survey transect showed a drop in saturation levels immediately below all but one of the habitat improvement structures.
JF  - Dissolved Gas and Fishery Investigations at Ridgway Dam - Phases 1, 2 and 3 Report. [np]. Feb 2004.
AU  - Frizell, KH
AU  - Hiebert, S D
Y1  - 2004/02//
PY  - 2004
DA  - February 2004
PB  - U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation USA
KW  - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - USA, Snake R.
KW  - Fishery data
KW  - Stocking (organisms)
KW  - Stock assessment
KW  - Surveys
KW  - Bubble disease
KW  - USA, Colorado R.
KW  - USA, Colorado
KW  - Dams
KW  - Fishery surveys
KW  - Habitat improvement
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Fish
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Bubbles
KW  - Data Collections
KW  - Nitrogen
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - Q1 08484:Species interactions: parasites and diseases
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19607563?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Frizell%2C+KH%3BHiebert%2C+S+D&rft.aulast=Frizell&rft.aufirst=KH&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Dissolved+Gas+and+Fishery+Investigations+at+Ridgway+Dam+-+Phases+1%2C+2+and+3+Report&rft.title=Dissolved+Gas+and+Fishery+Investigations+at+Ridgway+Dam+-+Phases+1%2C+2+and+3+Report&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TIMBERED ROCK FIRE SALVAGE AND ELK CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION, BUTTE FALLS RESOURCE AREA, MEDFORD DISTRICT, OREGON.
AN  - 16351252; 10606
AB  - PURPOSE: The salvage harvesting of timber burned in the Timber Rock Fire and the implementation of a restoration plan for the Elk Creek watershed of the Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District, Oregon are proposed. The Elk Creek watershed, the associated late-successional reserve, and the Timbered Rock Fire are located approximately 20 miles east of Medford. The Timber Rock Fire, which began July 13, 2002, burned over approximately 27,000 acres, 12,000 acres of which are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The remaining acreage consists of 11,000 acres of private industrial forest land, 600 acres administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers, 2,600 administered by the US Forest Service within the Rogue River National Forest, and a scattering of private holdings managed for various purposes. The study area for the salvage and restoration plan includes only public lands administered by the BLM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recovery of the economic value of fire-killed trees, reduction of fuel loading within the watershed, the levels of coarse woody debris and snags, the condition of late-successional forest habitat, cumulative impacts of fire and activity on commercial timberlands, road density and delivery of sediment to streams, and threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would provide for no salvage harvesting. Alternatives C through G would provide employ specific guidance related to post-fire salvage and/or late-successional reserve guidelines. The preferred alternative (Alternative G) would include area salvage on 328 acres within 16 units of at least 30 acres each for research purposes and area salvage for other purposes on 1,051 acres within units of more than 10 acres in extent. Roadside salvage would be undertaken on 955 acres to remove hazardous trees along open roads or roadbeds needed for temporary use for post-fire operations and hazardous trees identified by road users within riparian areas and remaining owl activity centers. A moderate level of restoration would be implemented, with emphasis on reducing vegetative competition in overstock stands with density management treatments and habitat restoration to accelerate the development of late-successional forest conditions. Harvest activities would result in the generation of 2.8 million board-feet of timber. Fuel management zones would be placed on ridge tops to potential reduce future fires to 5,000 to 7,000 acres and to provide protection to lands within the wildland/urban interface. Within the fire perimeter, restoration would focus on high priority road work. The plan would require the reconstruction of 2.6 miles of road, maintenance of 77 miles of road, partial or full decommissioning of 36 miles of road, permanent closure of 21 miles of road, and seasonal closure of 114 miles of road. Wildlife projects would be implemented to improve eagle nesting and log pile habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would take advantage of opportunities for the protection, enhancement, acceleration, and restoration of late-successional habitat and other proposed projects that occur within the Elk Creek watershed. Plan implementation would rehabilitate the fire damaged landscape; increase the resiliency of forest resources in the face of disturbance; allow for the economic recovery of fire-killed trees; and provide a setting for research into post-fire logging. Management activities would result in the creation of 41 jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road work, and fuel management activities would result in the disturbance of vegetation and soils and, in some areas, soil compaction. Soil erosion caused by management activities would result in the sedimentation of receiving surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0057D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040052, Executive Summary--33 pages and maps, Final EIS--521 pages, Appendices--299 pages. Supplements, January 30, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/06+1792
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Rogue River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351252?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TIMBERED+ROCK+FIRE+SALVAGE+AND+ELK+CREEK+WATERSHED+RESTORATION%2C+BUTTE+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=TIMBERED+ROCK+FIRE+SALVAGE+AND+ELK+CREEK+WATERSHED+RESTORATION%2C+BUTTE+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900616188; 10592-7_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616188?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900616187; 10592-7_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900616187?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900615970; 10592-7_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615970?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900615912; 10592-7_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615912?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900615911; 10592-7_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615911?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900615910; 10592-7_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615910?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614746; 10592-7_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614746?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614745; 10592-7_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614745?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614743; 10592-7_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614743?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614742; 10592-7_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614742?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614739; 10592-7_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614739?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614737; 10592-7_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614737?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614713; 10592-7_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614713?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614709; 10592-7_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614709?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 15]
T2  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 900614707; 10592-7_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614707?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY REPORT, PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS AND COMANCHE AND CIMARRON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, PARK, AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36421282; 10592
AB  - PURPOSE: The inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System of the North Fork of the South Platte River and portions of the South Platte River, located in Douglas, Jefferson, Park, and Teller counties of central Colorado, is proposed. Most of the 99.5 miles of river under consideration lie within the Pike National Forest, but the project area includes many private and local government land holdings and 29 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The river segments under consideration are free-flowing and possess outstanding recreational opportunities, fisheries, wildlife, and cultural resources. Jagged outcrops and massive rounded boulders of Pikes Peak granite are combined with steep vegetated slopes, providing a variety of visual relief. The study area supports a variety of wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagles, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), were considered in the April 1997 draft EIS. The proposed action would have involved implementing either Alternative J or Alternative A2. Under Alternative J, 48.1 miles of the South Platte River would be protected. The protected area would extend from the confluence with the North Fork to the special-use fence line below Elevenmile Dam. Two segments totaling 34.6 miles would be designated as recreational; three segments totaling 10.5 miles would be designated as wild; and one 3.0-mile segment would be designated as scenic. Under Alternative A2, there would be no official wild and scenic designation. Instead, non-federal parties would assume responsibility for protecting unique river values. A supplemental EIS issued in March 2000 addressed Alternatives A2 and J as well as Alternative A3, which responds to public concerns regarding Alternative A2. A No Action Alternative (Alternative A1), was included in the supplement for comparison purposes. This final EIS addresses 10 alternatives, including two No Action Alternatives (alternatives A1 and A2). The currently preferred alternative, a combination of alternatives A2 and A3, would protect the river through a cooperative process, under federal/state/local government partnership as outlined in the South Platte Protection Plan (SIPP), which is appended to this document. The preferred alternative (Alternative A3) would recognize water supply as a use of the river corridor to be continued and continue use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the corridor, while protecting water quality and the free-flowing character of the river. Wild and Scenic River designation would be withheld to allow for a period of review of the adequacy of the SIPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the implementation would fulfill management requirements mandated by federal and state legislation. Long-term water resource impacts would be reduced, and unique river resources would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing limited water resource development could have impacts on ORV use and the free-flowing character of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 98-0153D, Volume 21, Number 2 and 00-0248F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 040037, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--597 pages, January 23, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cimarron National Grassland
KW  - Comanche National Grassland
KW  - Colorado
KW  - North Fork, South Platte River
KW  - Pike National Forest
KW  - San Isabel National Forest
KW  - South Platte River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36421282?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+AND+THE+SOUTH+PLATTE+RIVERS+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+STUDY+REPORT%2C+PIKE+AND+SAN+ISABEL+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+COMANCHE+AND+CIMARRON+NATIONAL+GRASSLANDS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+PARK%2C+AND+TELLER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pueblo, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT, SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DELTA REGION, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36434876; 10589
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an environmental water account (EWA) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Region of California is proposed. The delta region provides water to the majority of California's agriculture and to urban and industrial communities. The delta also provides habitat for numerous plant, animal, and fish species, including several endangered species. This dual role places the region at the center or an ongoing conflict between environmental and water supply interests. Within the delta, pumping plants operated by the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) move water from the delta to a system of canals and reservoirs for use by agricultural interests, communities, and wildlife refuges in the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and southern California, and along the central coast. Pumping water from the delta alters normal flow patterns and can threaten the recovery of endangered and threatened fish species unless the projection of those species is adopted as an operations parameter. Reduction of delta pumping for protection and recovery of fish habitat can, however, interrupt water supply deliveries, thereby reducing the reliability of California's water supply. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a collaborative effort of 23 federal and state agencies seeking to resolve these conflicts. Rivers affecting water resources associated with the delta include the American, Merced, Feather, Yuba, Sacramento, and San Joaquin rivers. This final EIS analyzes three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives would involve the acquisition of EWA assets via stored surface water, stored groundwater, groundwater substitution, and crop idling purchases. EWA asset management would be achieved through source shifting, groundwater storage, and borrowing of project water. The action alternatives would differ primarily in actions taken to protect fish and the quantities of assets acquired. The proposed action would adopt a flexible interpretation of the CALFED directives, incorporating functionally equivalent purchases and actions within the framework of the directives. EWA agencies would adjust purchases of water to respond to differing hydrologic conditions and to take advantage of water acquisition /storage possibilities throughout the CVP and SWP service areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EWA, which is provided for under the CALFED Programmatic EIS /Environmental Impact Report Record of Decision, would assist in fish population recovery for at-risk native fish species and increase water supply reliability by reducing uncertainty associated with fish recovery actions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Water withdrawals, storage, and releases would affect surface water supply and management regimes, water quality, groundwater levels and groundwater quality, wind-born soil losses, air quality due to pump operations, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, regional agricultural economics, agricultural land use, agricultural social values, recreational resources, flood control capacities, hydropower production, cultural resource sites, visual aesthetics, groundwater that constitutes Indian Trust Assets. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0110D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040034, 523 pages, January 21, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-03
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - American River
KW  - California
KW  - Feather River
KW  - Merced River
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Yuba River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434876?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT, SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DELTA REGION, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT, SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DELTA REGION, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36359141; 10589-040034_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an environmental water account (EWA) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Region of California is proposed. The delta region provides water to the majority of California's agriculture and to urban and industrial communities. The delta also provides habitat for numerous plant, animal, and fish species, including several endangered species. This dual role places the region at the center or an ongoing conflict between environmental and water supply interests. Within the delta, pumping plants operated by the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) move water from the delta to a system of canals and reservoirs for use by agricultural interests, communities, and wildlife refuges in the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and southern California, and along the central coast. Pumping water from the delta alters normal flow patterns and can threaten the recovery of endangered and threatened fish species unless the projection of those species is adopted as an operations parameter. Reduction of delta pumping for protection and recovery of fish habitat can, however, interrupt water supply deliveries, thereby reducing the reliability of California's water supply. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a collaborative effort of 23 federal and state agencies seeking to resolve these conflicts. Rivers affecting water resources associated with the delta include the American, Merced, Feather, Yuba, Sacramento, and San Joaquin rivers. This final EIS analyzes three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives would involve the acquisition of EWA assets via stored surface water, stored groundwater, groundwater substitution, and crop idling purchases. EWA asset management would be achieved through source shifting, groundwater storage, and borrowing of project water. The action alternatives would differ primarily in actions taken to protect fish and the quantities of assets acquired. The proposed action would adopt a flexible interpretation of the CALFED directives, incorporating functionally equivalent purchases and actions within the framework of the directives. EWA agencies would adjust purchases of water to respond to differing hydrologic conditions and to take advantage of water acquisition /storage possibilities throughout the CVP and SWP service areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EWA, which is provided for under the CALFED Programmatic EIS /Environmental Impact Report Record of Decision, would assist in fish population recovery for at-risk native fish species and increase water supply reliability by reducing uncertainty associated with fish recovery actions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Water withdrawals, storage, and releases would affect surface water supply and management regimes, water quality, groundwater levels and groundwater quality, wind-born soil losses, air quality due to pump operations, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, regional agricultural economics, agricultural land use, agricultural social values, recreational resources, flood control capacities, hydropower production, cultural resource sites, visual aesthetics, groundwater that constitutes Indian Trust Assets. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0110D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040034, 523 pages, January 21, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-03
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - American River
KW  - California
KW  - Feather River
KW  - Merced River
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Yuba River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEBRASKA, AND WYOMING: ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A BASINWIDE, COOPERATIVE, ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PROGRAM. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEBRASKA, AND WYOMING: ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A BASINWIDE, COOPERATIVE, ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PROGRAM.
AN  - 36351335; 10582-040027_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem recovery program within the Platte River corridor in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming is proposed to benefit target species and their habitat. In 1997, the states and the Department of the Interior signed a cooperative agreement relating to endangered species habitats along the central Platte River. The signatories agreed to pursue a basinwide, cooperative approach to improve and maintain habitat for four threatened and endangered species, namely, the whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon, within the river corridor. The habitat objectives of the program would include improving flows in the central Platte River through water re-regulation and conservation/supply projects and protecting, restoring, and maintaining at least 10,000 acres of habitat in the central Platte River corridor between Lexington and Chapman, Nebraska. This draft EIS considers the first 13-year phase of the recovery program, analyzing five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with hydrology, water quality, land, target species and their habitat, other wildlife species, hydropower, recreation, economics, and social and cultural resources. The program would address the mainstem and tributaries of the river and associated water projects in Nebraska; the South Platte River and its tributaries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming; and the North Platte River and its tributaries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Certain program activities could affect the Missouri River close to the mouth of the Platte River. The study area also includes irrigated lands in the basin, where water may be leased or sold to the program. While elements of the action alternatives are located throughout the entire basin, the intent of these actions is to improve habitat conditions in two habitat areas, specifically, the central Platte River between Lexington and Chapman, for whooping crane, piping plover, and interior least tern, and the reach in the lower Platte River from the Elkhorn to the confluence with the Missouri River for pallid sturgeon. Generally, the program would involve fee purchase, easement acquisition, and leasing of lands for conservation purposes and flow control and enhancement measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act with respect to the target species, improving and maintaining habitat for these species and other species using habitat within the Platte River corridor. Land and water habitat for the target species would be improved, assisting in their conservation and recovery. The likelihood that additional species would require federal protection would be lessened. The program would also ensure compliance with historic public water-use requirements related to the river. Hydroelectric production along the river would increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Lease or purchase of irrigated lands by the program could affect agricultural uses on these lands. Flow control measures would restrict some uses of river water, including irrigation uses. Changes in reservoir levels due to releases would reduce reservoir fishery habitat values and impact recreational values associated with the impoundments. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040027, 891 pages and maps, January 21, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Easements
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Platte River
KW  - Missouri River
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351335?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PLATTE+RIVER+RECOVERY+IMPLEMENTATION+PROGRAM%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+AND+WYOMING%3A+ASSESSING+ALTERNATIVES+FOR+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+A+BASINWIDE%2C+COOPERATIVE%2C+ENDANGERED+SPECIES+RECOVERY+PROGRAM.&rft.title=PLATTE+RIVER+RECOVERY+IMPLEMENTATION+PROGRAM%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+AND+WYOMING%3A+ASSESSING+ALTERNATIVES+FOR+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+A+BASINWIDE%2C+COOPERATIVE%2C+ENDANGERED+SPECIES+RECOVERY+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 21, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEBRASKA, AND WYOMING: ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A BASINWIDE, COOPERATIVE, ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PROGRAM.
AN  - 16355769; 10582
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem recovery program within the Platte River corridor in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming is proposed to benefit target species and their habitat. In 1997, the states and the Department of the Interior signed a cooperative agreement relating to endangered species habitats along the central Platte River. The signatories agreed to pursue a basinwide, cooperative approach to improve and maintain habitat for four threatened and endangered species, namely, the whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon, within the river corridor. The habitat objectives of the program would include improving flows in the central Platte River through water re-regulation and conservation/supply projects and protecting, restoring, and maintaining at least 10,000 acres of habitat in the central Platte River corridor between Lexington and Chapman, Nebraska. This draft EIS considers the first 13-year phase of the recovery program, analyzing five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with hydrology, water quality, land, target species and their habitat, other wildlife species, hydropower, recreation, economics, and social and cultural resources. The program would address the mainstem and tributaries of the river and associated water projects in Nebraska; the South Platte River and its tributaries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming; and the North Platte River and its tributaries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Certain program activities could affect the Missouri River close to the mouth of the Platte River. The study area also includes irrigated lands in the basin, where water may be leased or sold to the program. While elements of the action alternatives are located throughout the entire basin, the intent of these actions is to improve habitat conditions in two habitat areas, specifically, the central Platte River between Lexington and Chapman, for whooping crane, piping plover, and interior least tern, and the reach in the lower Platte River from the Elkhorn to the confluence with the Missouri River for pallid sturgeon. Generally, the program would involve fee purchase, easement acquisition, and leasing of lands for conservation purposes and flow control and enhancement measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act with respect to the target species, improving and maintaining habitat for these species and other species using habitat within the Platte River corridor. Land and water habitat for the target species would be improved, assisting in their conservation and recovery. The likelihood that additional species would require federal protection would be lessened. The program would also ensure compliance with historic public water-use requirements related to the river. Hydroelectric production along the river would increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Lease or purchase of irrigated lands by the program could affect agricultural uses on these lands. Flow control measures would restrict some uses of river water, including irrigation uses. Changes in reservoir levels due to releases would reduce reservoir fishery habitat values and impact recreational values associated with the impoundments. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040027, 891 pages and maps, January 21, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Easements
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Platte River
KW  - Missouri River
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355769?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PLATTE+RIVER+RECOVERY+IMPLEMENTATION+PROGRAM%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+AND+WYOMING%3A+ASSESSING+ALTERNATIVES+FOR+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+A+BASINWIDE%2C+COOPERATIVE%2C+ENDANGERED+SPECIES+RECOVERY+PROGRAM.&rft.title=PLATTE+RIVER+RECOVERY+IMPLEMENTATION+PROGRAM%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+AND+WYOMING%3A+ASSESSING+ALTERNATIVES+FOR+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+A+BASINWIDE%2C+COOPERATIVE%2C+ENDANGERED+SPECIES+RECOVERY+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 21, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL.
AN  - 36351676; 10580-040024_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to the accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. Long-term annual costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $16.8 million, $9.5 million, and $10.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0155F, Volume 28, Number 2. For the abstract of a previous draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0325D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040024, Final EIS-- 352 pages, Appendices--414 pages, January 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/007+1792
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351676?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL.
AN  - 36349960; 10580-040024_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to the accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. Long-term annual costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $16.8 million, $9.5 million, and $10.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0155F, Volume 28, Number 2. For the abstract of a previous draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0325D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040024, Final EIS-- 352 pages, Appendices--414 pages, January 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/007+1792
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349960?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL.
AN  - 36348954; 10580-040024_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to the accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. Long-term annual costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $16.8 million, $9.5 million, and $10.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0155F, Volume 28, Number 2. For the abstract of a previous draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0325D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040024, Final EIS-- 352 pages, Appendices--414 pages, January 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/007+1792
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348954?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL.
AN  - 16368777; 10580
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to the accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. Long-term annual costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $16.8 million, $9.5 million, and $10.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0155F, Volume 28, Number 2. For the abstract of a previous draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0325D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040024, Final EIS-- 352 pages, Appendices--414 pages, January 16, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/007+1792
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368777?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 16, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, DELTA AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, DELTA AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36349985; 10575-040019_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (NCA) of Delta and Montrose counties, Colorado is proposed. The area encompasses approximately 196,000 acres in southwestern Colorado; the area is located approximately 10 miles north of the city of Montrose and seven miles east of the city of Delta. The areas includes the 55,745-acre Gunnison Gorge NCA and the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness, which encompasses 17,784 acres within the NCA, as well as 99,743 acres of privately owned land and 666 acres of state land. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, a modification of the alternative indicated as preferred in the draft EIS (Alternative D), would emphasize the natural, cultural, scenic, wilderness, and recreational values for which the NCA and the wilderness were designated. Some special management areas would be created for scientific research and public education. The resources in the planning area would be monitored during and after activities that involve surface disturbance, and adaptive management techniques would be employed as needed to ensure that land health standards were met. Public lands in the planning area would be managed to achieve the psychological experiences and individual, social, economic, and environmental benefits associated with varying degrees of solitude and remoteness, a variety of recreational opportunities and experiences, education and interpretation opportunities, and land and resource health conditions that meet of improve land health standards. In general, 56 percent of the planning area would be managed with a resource conservation emphasis, 24 percent with a recreation-based emphasis, and the remaining 19 percent with no specific emphasis though the focus would be on multiple-use management. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide a comprehensive framework for managing the NCA, wilderness, and other generally administered lands within the planning area. Multiple use of the administered lands would be incorporated into resource management as appropriate. This alternative would improve land health conditions in all areas that do not meet land health standards. The Gunnison Gorge corridor would benefit from management as a wild and scenic river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way withdrawals would affect access to the area by communication and utility interests. Reductions in areas available for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would reduce recreational access to the affected areas. Some areas would be affected visually and otherwise by increased OHV use. Mineral and geothermal developments on up to 40,038 acres would result in destruction of vegetation, disturbance of soils, and loss of the associated wildlife habitat during the life of mineral extraction operations. Habitat for federally protected species could be affected. Grazing allotment size would be reduced in some areas, affecting the economic viability of some range operators. LEGAL MANDATES: Black Canyon of Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-76), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0288D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040019, 861 pages and maps, January 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-02
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Gunnison Gorge National Monument
KW  - Black Canyon of Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wild Scenic Rivers Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349985?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GUNNISON+GORGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+DELTA+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GUNNISON+GORGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+DELTA+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montrose, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, DELTA AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 16368202; 10575
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (NCA) of Delta and Montrose counties, Colorado is proposed. The area encompasses approximately 196,000 acres in southwestern Colorado; the area is located approximately 10 miles north of the city of Montrose and seven miles east of the city of Delta. The areas includes the 55,745-acre Gunnison Gorge NCA and the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness, which encompasses 17,784 acres within the NCA, as well as 99,743 acres of privately owned land and 666 acres of state land. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, a modification of the alternative indicated as preferred in the draft EIS (Alternative D), would emphasize the natural, cultural, scenic, wilderness, and recreational values for which the NCA and the wilderness were designated. Some special management areas would be created for scientific research and public education. The resources in the planning area would be monitored during and after activities that involve surface disturbance, and adaptive management techniques would be employed as needed to ensure that land health standards were met. Public lands in the planning area would be managed to achieve the psychological experiences and individual, social, economic, and environmental benefits associated with varying degrees of solitude and remoteness, a variety of recreational opportunities and experiences, education and interpretation opportunities, and land and resource health conditions that meet of improve land health standards. In general, 56 percent of the planning area would be managed with a resource conservation emphasis, 24 percent with a recreation-based emphasis, and the remaining 19 percent with no specific emphasis though the focus would be on multiple-use management. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide a comprehensive framework for managing the NCA, wilderness, and other generally administered lands within the planning area. Multiple use of the administered lands would be incorporated into resource management as appropriate. This alternative would improve land health conditions in all areas that do not meet land health standards. The Gunnison Gorge corridor would benefit from management as a wild and scenic river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way withdrawals would affect access to the area by communication and utility interests. Reductions in areas available for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would reduce recreational access to the affected areas. Some areas would be affected visually and otherwise by increased OHV use. Mineral and geothermal developments on up to 40,038 acres would result in destruction of vegetation, disturbance of soils, and loss of the associated wildlife habitat during the life of mineral extraction operations. Habitat for federally protected species could be affected. Grazing allotment size would be reduced in some areas, affecting the economic viability of some range operators. LEGAL MANDATES: Black Canyon of Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-76), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0288D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 040019, 861 pages and maps, January 15, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-02
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Gunnison Gorge National Monument
KW  - Black Canyon of Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wild Scenic Rivers Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368202?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GUNNISON+GORGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+DELTA+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GUNNISON+GORGE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+DELTA+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montrose, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MANAGEMENT OF PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR, COOS BAY, MEDFORD, AND ROSEBURG BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS AND SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST IN SOUTHWEST OREGON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - MANAGEMENT OF PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR, COOS BAY, MEDFORD, AND ROSEBURG BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS AND SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST IN SOUTHWEST OREGON.
AN  - 36350211; 10572-040016_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management system to protect Port-Orford-cedar (POC) against root disease is proposed for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg districts and the Siskyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. The existing POC management direction was included in land and resource management plans adopted in 1989 and 1995, with little visible analysis regarding how well that direction would work at the range-wide scale and over the long-term. A U.S. Court of Appeals decision found that a BLM project-specific environmental analysis had not adequately considered cumulative impacts to the health of POC over its entire range in view of reasonably forseeable actions of the agency and others. A follow-up decision by a U.S. District County ruled that the EIS for the Coos Bay District resource management plan was inadequate under because it did not include an analysis of reasonable foreseeable future timber sales and other actions with respect to the root disease. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would continue the current direction of implementing available disease management practices based on site specific analysis. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would use the same management practices as Alternative 1, but would place additional emphasis on 162 uninfested watersheds and include a risk key to clarify the environmental conditions that require implementation of site-specific practices. Alternative 3 would include all elements of Alternative 2 and add additional protections for 32 currently infected sixth field watersheds. Alternative 4 would eliminate existing disease management practices while accelerating the resistant stock breeding program to provide such stock for all areas within 10 years. Alternative 5 would also remove existing disease management practices and cease development of resistant seed for remaining undeveloped breeding zones. Alternative 6 would include all elements of Alternative, adding further protections for the 162 currently uninfested watersheds. More specifically, with respect to the preferred alternative, the plan would include site-specific analysis as noted above, the use of all known disease control practices as necessary, and the continuation of the breeding of resistant stocks at current levels. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would include certain road closures. Average annual costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $846,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Each alternative would respond to the purpose of the proposal, to the degree such treatments are needed, practical, and cost-effective, of reducing disease introductions, slowing the spread of the disease where present and/or mitigating the occurrence of the disease. Certain rare plants associated with POC would benefit from treatments. Road closures would decrease the extent of bare soil liable to infestation by invasive plant species and enhance visual aesthetics and wilderness and wild and scenic river values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 52,120 acres would be infected in high-risk riparian areas over a 100-year horizon. One or more of the 64 identified plant associations where POC is a major component would suffer species diversity losses; diversity declines would particularly affect ultramatic soils where POC is a major component. Use of chemical disease eradication methods could result in isolated mortality among some aquatic species. Fuel suppression costs would increase by two percent due to the increase in dead and dying trees. Road closures would limit recreational user access somewhat. Employment rolls would decrease somewhat due to a decrease in timber industry activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0431D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040016, 550 pages and maps, January 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Chemical Treatment Plans
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Siskiyou National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350211?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANAGEMENT+OF+PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+MEDFORD%2C+AND+ROSEBURG+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+AND+SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+FOREST+IN+SOUTHWEST+OREGON.&rft.title=MANAGEMENT+OF+PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+MEDFORD%2C+AND+ROSEBURG+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+AND+SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+FOREST+IN+SOUTHWEST+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MANAGEMENT OF PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR, COOS BAY, MEDFORD, AND ROSEBURG BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS AND SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST IN SOUTHWEST OREGON.
AN  - 16358276; 10572
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a management system to protect Port-Orford-cedar (POC) against root disease is proposed for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg districts and the Siskyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. The existing POC management direction was included in land and resource management plans adopted in 1989 and 1995, with little visible analysis regarding how well that direction would work at the range-wide scale and over the long-term. A U.S. Court of Appeals decision found that a BLM project-specific environmental analysis had not adequately considered cumulative impacts to the health of POC over its entire range in view of reasonably forseeable actions of the agency and others. A follow-up decision by a U.S. District County ruled that the EIS for the Coos Bay District resource management plan was inadequate under because it did not include an analysis of reasonable foreseeable future timber sales and other actions with respect to the root disease. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would continue the current direction of implementing available disease management practices based on site specific analysis. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would use the same management practices as Alternative 1, but would place additional emphasis on 162 uninfested watersheds and include a risk key to clarify the environmental conditions that require implementation of site-specific practices. Alternative 3 would include all elements of Alternative 2 and add additional protections for 32 currently infected sixth field watersheds. Alternative 4 would eliminate existing disease management practices while accelerating the resistant stock breeding program to provide such stock for all areas within 10 years. Alternative 5 would also remove existing disease management practices and cease development of resistant seed for remaining undeveloped breeding zones. Alternative 6 would include all elements of Alternative, adding further protections for the 162 currently uninfested watersheds. More specifically, with respect to the preferred alternative, the plan would include site-specific analysis as noted above, the use of all known disease control practices as necessary, and the continuation of the breeding of resistant stocks at current levels. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would include certain road closures. Average annual costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $846,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Each alternative would respond to the purpose of the proposal, to the degree such treatments are needed, practical, and cost-effective, of reducing disease introductions, slowing the spread of the disease where present and/or mitigating the occurrence of the disease. Certain rare plants associated with POC would benefit from treatments. Road closures would decrease the extent of bare soil liable to infestation by invasive plant species and enhance visual aesthetics and wilderness and wild and scenic river values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 52,120 acres would be infected in high-risk riparian areas over a 100-year horizon. One or more of the 64 identified plant associations where POC is a major component would suffer species diversity losses; diversity declines would particularly affect ultramatic soils where POC is a major component. Use of chemical disease eradication methods could result in isolated mortality among some aquatic species. Fuel suppression costs would increase by two percent due to the increase in dead and dying trees. Road closures would limit recreational user access somewhat. Employment rolls would decrease somewhat due to a decrease in timber industry activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0431D, Volume 27, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040016, 550 pages and maps, January 13, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Chemical Treatment Plans
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Siskiyou National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358276?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANAGEMENT+OF+PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+MEDFORD%2C+AND+ROSEBURG+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+AND+SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+FOREST+IN+SOUTHWEST+OREGON.&rft.title=MANAGEMENT+OF+PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+MEDFORD%2C+AND+ROSEBURG+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+AND+SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+FOREST+IN+SOUTHWEST+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL, ARKANSAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL, ARKANSAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 36353771; 10566-040009_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Arkansas Post National Memorial in Arkansas County, Arkansas is proposed. The memorial, a national historic landmark, is situation on Arkansas Highway 169, seven miles south of Gillett. In 1686 Henri de Tonty established a trading post in the area; this was the first European settlement in the lower Mississippi River Valley. The site was historically significant during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would reflect a continuation of the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize interpretation of the cultural heritage associated with the memorial. Alternative C would emphasize the preservation of cultural and natural resources associated with the memorial for future generations. Alternative D would emphasize the educational and interpretive goals of the memorial through an array of recreational activities while emphasizing the interpretation of the park's historical significance. The preferred alternative would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center, which would also be expanded to better highlight the park's cultural and natural resources. New programs, such as musical and other performances and the provision of foods representative of a particular culture, would be come part of the annual park activity schedule. The picnic area and the road and trail system would be retained. An informal overflow parking area would be provided. Interpretation of the resources associated with the Civil War would be enhanced. A large portion of the memorial would be managed for the maximum protection of its natural and cultural resources. Some water-based recreation would be allowed. A small visitor contact station, parking area, picnic area, research support facility, maintenance area, and park ranger housing facility would be constructed at the Osotouy Unit. An interpretigve? loop train emphasizing Native American culture and Euro-American interactions with the aboriginal culture would be developed. Initial cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $2.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would place management emphasis on interpreting the rich cultural heritage that flourished over the centuries in the area of the memorial. It would provide new and innovative ways to celebrate the area's cultural diversity while maintaining the park's natural and cultural resources. Operation and maintenance of the memorial under the new management plan would employ 12 additional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of park facilities would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Additional visitation to the park would exacerbate these impacts and could result in increased incidence of vandalism targeting cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), and Public Law 105-83. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0188D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040009, 185 pages, January 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-01
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Arkansas Post National Memorial
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-83, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353771?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARKANSAS+POST+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+ARKANSAS+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=ARKANSAS+POST+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+ARKANSAS+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gillett, Arkansas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL, ARKANSAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 16368824; 10566
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Arkansas Post National Memorial in Arkansas County, Arkansas is proposed. The memorial, a national historic landmark, is situation on Arkansas Highway 169, seven miles south of Gillett. In 1686 Henri de Tonty established a trading post in the area; this was the first European settlement in the lower Mississippi River Valley. The site was historically significant during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would reflect a continuation of the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize interpretation of the cultural heritage associated with the memorial. Alternative C would emphasize the preservation of cultural and natural resources associated with the memorial for future generations. Alternative D would emphasize the educational and interpretive goals of the memorial through an array of recreational activities while emphasizing the interpretation of the park's historical significance. The preferred alternative would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center, which would also be expanded to better highlight the park's cultural and natural resources. New programs, such as musical and other performances and the provision of foods representative of a particular culture, would be come part of the annual park activity schedule. The picnic area and the road and trail system would be retained. An informal overflow parking area would be provided. Interpretation of the resources associated with the Civil War would be enhanced. A large portion of the memorial would be managed for the maximum protection of its natural and cultural resources. Some water-based recreation would be allowed. A small visitor contact station, parking area, picnic area, research support facility, maintenance area, and park ranger housing facility would be constructed at the Osotouy Unit. An interpretigve? loop train emphasizing Native American culture and Euro-American interactions with the aboriginal culture would be developed. Initial cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $2.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would place management emphasis on interpreting the rich cultural heritage that flourished over the centuries in the area of the memorial. It would provide new and innovative ways to celebrate the area's cultural diversity while maintaining the park's natural and cultural resources. Operation and maintenance of the memorial under the new management plan would employ 12 additional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of park facilities would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Additional visitation to the park would exacerbate these impacts and could result in increased incidence of vandalism targeting cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), and Public Law 105-83. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0188D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040009, 185 pages, January 9, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-01
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Arkansas Post National Memorial
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-83, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368824?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARKANSAS+POST+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+ARKANSAS+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=ARKANSAS+POST+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+ARKANSAS+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gillett, Arkansas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 9, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 100 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670655; 10559-2_0100
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 100
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670655?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 98 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670639; 10559-2_0098
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 98
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670639?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 97 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670630; 10559-2_0097
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 97
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670630?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 96 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670623; 10559-2_0096
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 96
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 40 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670615; 10559-2_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 40
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670615?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 38 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670599; 10559-2_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 38
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670599?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670588; 10559-2_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 35
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670588?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 34 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670574; 10559-2_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 34
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670574?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 33 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670564; 10559-2_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 33
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670564?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670554; 10559-2_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 32
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670554?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670544; 10559-2_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 31
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670544?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670530; 10559-2_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 30
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670530?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670519; 10559-2_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 29
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670519?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670509; 10559-2_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 28
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670509?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670496; 10559-2_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 27
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670496?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670482; 10559-2_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670482?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670469; 10559-2_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670469?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670461; 10559-2_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670461?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670452; 10559-2_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670452?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670446; 10559-2_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670446?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670439; 10559-2_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670439?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670434; 10559-2_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670434?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670429; 10559-2_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670429?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670423; 10559-2_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670423?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670415; 10559-2_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670415?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 102 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670399; 10559-2_0102
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 102
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670399?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 101 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670388; 10559-2_0101
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 101
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670388?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 62 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670283; 10559-2_0062
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 62
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670283?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 61 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670278; 10559-2_0061
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 61
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670278?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 60 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670273; 10559-2_0060
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 60
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670273?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670268; 10559-2_0059
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 59
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670268?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 95 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670082; 10559-2_0095
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 95
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670082?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 94 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670078; 10559-2_0094
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 94
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670078?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 93 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670073; 10559-2_0093
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 93
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670073?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 89 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670067; 10559-2_0089
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 89
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670067?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 88 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670062; 10559-2_0088
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 88
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670062?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 87 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670056; 10559-2_0087
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 87
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670056?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670051; 10559-2_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 43
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670051?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 42 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670047; 10559-2_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 42
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670047?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 41 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670042; 10559-2_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 41
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670042?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670037; 10559-2_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670037?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670032; 10559-2_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670032?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670028; 10559-2_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670028?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670022; 10559-2_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670022?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670017; 10559-2_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670017?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670013; 10559-2_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670013?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670006; 10559-2_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670006?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898670001; 10559-2_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670001?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669997; 10559-2_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669997?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669994; 10559-2_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669994?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669988; 10559-2_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669988?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 104 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669958; 10559-2_0104
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 104
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669958?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 103 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669952; 10559-2_0103
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 103
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669952?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 92 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669948; 10559-2_0092
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 92
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669948?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 91 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669947; 10559-2_0091
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 91
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669947?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 90 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669946; 10559-2_0090
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 90
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669946?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 37 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669945; 10559-2_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 37
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669945?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669944; 10559-2_0036
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 36
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669944?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669942; 10559-2_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669942?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669941; 10559-2_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669941?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669940; 10559-2_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669940?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 86 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669939; 10559-2_0086
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 86
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669939?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 85 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669938; 10559-2_0085
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 85
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669938?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 84 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669937; 10559-2_0084
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 84
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669937?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 83 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669936; 10559-2_0083
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 83
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669936?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 82 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669935; 10559-2_0082
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 82
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669935?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 81 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669934; 10559-2_0081
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 81
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669934?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 80 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669933; 10559-2_0080
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 80
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669933?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 79 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669932; 10559-2_0079
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 79
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669932?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 78 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669931; 10559-2_0078
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 78
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669931?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 77 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669930; 10559-2_0077
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 77
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669930?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 76 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669929; 10559-2_0076
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 76
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669929?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 75 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669928; 10559-2_0075
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 75
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669928?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 74 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669927; 10559-2_0074
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 74
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669927?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 73 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669926; 10559-2_0073
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 73
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669926?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 58 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669925; 10559-2_0058
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 58
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669925?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669924; 10559-2_0057
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 57
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669924?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 72 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669923; 10559-2_0072
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 72
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669923?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 70 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669921; 10559-2_0070
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 70
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669921?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669920; 10559-2_0053
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 53
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669920?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 69 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669919; 10559-2_0069
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 69
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669919?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 52 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669918; 10559-2_0052
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 52
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669918?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 51 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669916; 10559-2_0051
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 51
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669916?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 67 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669915; 10559-2_0067
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 67
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669915?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 50 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669914; 10559-2_0050
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 50
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669914?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 66 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669913; 10559-2_0066
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 66
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669913?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 48 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669911; 10559-2_0048
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 48
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669911?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 65 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669910; 10559-2_0065
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 65
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669910?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 47 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669909; 10559-2_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 47
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669909?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 46 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669908; 10559-2_0046
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 46
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669908?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 64 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669907; 10559-2_0064
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 64
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669907?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669906; 10559-2_0056
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 56
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669906?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 55 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669905; 10559-2_0055
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 55
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669905?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 63 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669904; 10559-2_0063
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 63
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669904?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669903; 10559-2_0054
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 54
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669903?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 45 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669894; 10559-2_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 45
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669894?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 44 of 105]
T2  - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 898669893; 10559-2_0044
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 44
KW  - Energy
KW  - Airports
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Gravel
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669893?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898670411; 10557-0_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 8
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670411?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898670408; 10557-0_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 7
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670408?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898669984; 10557-0_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 6
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669984?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898669981; 10557-0_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 5
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669981?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898669979; 10557-0_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669979?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898669977; 10557-0_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669977?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898669974; 10557-0_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669974?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 898669971; 10557-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669971?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 16351155; 10557
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on the north bank of the Columbia River in Washington is proposed. The fort, founded by the British, was turned over to the United States in 1846. The Fort Vancouver National Monument was established in 1948 to preserve as a national monument the site of the original Hudson Bay Company (HBC) stockade. To improve conditions for achieving the legislative requirements of the park, Congress passed an act in 1961 enlarging the boundaries of the monument to include an additional 130 acres of land, bringing the total acreage at the site to 209 acres. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would contain several new elements that would result in expanded opportunities for visitors to appreciate the broad sense of history that characterizes Fort Vancouver and its place in the history of the Northwest. Specific actions would include the reconstruction of nine HBC period structures within the fort palisade and two at the associated village site. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added, including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. An interpretive area would be developed at the Waterfront via partial reconstruction of the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed and delineation of several other historic HBC sites. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with wetland plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation. The pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretive facilities and vegetation. A shuttle system would be established to facilitate visitation. One of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground would be renovated for use as administrative headquarters for the park and other reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures, including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving and protecting the resources at the fort, the plan would provide for additional education, outreach, and research opportunities with respect to interpretation of the facility's role in the history of the immediate area and its broader role in the history of the Northwest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0173, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 040000, Final EIS--248 pages, Draft EIS--209 pages, January 6, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Museums
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351155?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=FORT+VANCOUVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Vancouver, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Bureau of Indian Affairs. Office of Indian Education Programs. School Report Cards. 2003-2004
AN  - 62119668; ED486147
AB  - This report presents both the Bureau-Wide Annual Report Card for 2003-2004 and individual report cards for 120 schools. Information presented in each report card include: tribes served, type of school, grades, accreditation, enrollment, goals (performance indicators) data, staff development, number of reported incidents involving either substance abuse or violence, and indicators of improvement achieved in the subject areas of language arts, reading, and mathematics.
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 195
KW  - No Child Left Behind Act 2001
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Substance Abuse
KW  - Instructional Program Divisions
KW  - Public Agencies
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Accreditation (Institutions)
KW  - Enrollment
KW  - American Indian Education
KW  - Report Cards
KW  - Violence
KW  - Educational Improvement
KW  - American Indians
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62119668?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northwest National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; record of decision
AN  - 51826356; 2004-056633
JF  - Northwest National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; record of decision
Y1  - 2004/01//
PY  - 2004
DA  - January 2004
SP  - 28
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-04/008+3130+931
KW  - Scale: 1:100,000
KW  - Type: land use map
KW  - United States
KW  - monitoring
KW  - regional planning
KW  - land use maps
KW  - impact statements
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - environmental management
KW  - mitigation
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - maps
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - CD-ROM
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51826356?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northwest+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+record+of+decision&rft.title=Northwest+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+record+of+decision&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2004-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 102
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes CD-ROM and 3 appendices
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Precipitation Runoff Model for the Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals and Land-Use Change on Streamflow in the Usquepaug-Queen River Basin, Rhode Island
AN  - 20720874; 7293318
AB  - This report describes the development and calibration of the Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF), a precipitation- runoff model for the Usquepaug-Queen Basin. The report also describes results of model simulations to evaluate (1) streamflows under no withdrawals to streamflow under current (2000-01) withdrawal conditions under long-term (1960-2001) climatic conditions, (2) effects on streamflow of withdrawals by the former Ladd School water-supply wells, and (3) the effects on streamflow under fully developed land-use conditions. The report includes information about the study area, climate, streamflow, and water- use data used in the model, methods used to obtain the data, and a logistic-regression equation developed to predict the likelihood of irrigation.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Zarriello, P J
AU  - Bent, G C
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 90
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5139
KW  - Precipitation(Meteorology)
KW  - Runoff
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - River basins
KW  - Hydrologic models
KW  - Land use
KW  - Withdrawal
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Rhode Island
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Flow models
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Aquatic habitats
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Usquepaug-Queen River Basin(Rhode Island)
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Runoff models
KW  - Resource management
KW  - Rainfall
KW  - Basins
KW  - climatic conditions
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Climatic conditions
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Hydrologic Models
KW  - schools
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Modelling
KW  - Climate models
KW  - Mathematical models
KW  - Rainfall-runoff Relationships
KW  - Climates
KW  - Simulation
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Education establishments
KW  - Methodology
KW  - Numerical simulations
KW  - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
KW  - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16)
KW  - Q2 09261:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20720874?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Sustainability+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Zarriello%2C+P+J%3BBent%2C+G+C&rft.aulast=Zarriello&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=90&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Precipitation+Runoff+Model+for+the+Analysis+of+the+Effects+of+Water+Withdrawals+and+Land-Use+Change+on+Streamflow+in+the+Usquepaug-Queen+River+Basin%2C+Rhode+Island&rft.title=Precipitation+Runoff+Model+for+the+Analysis+of+the+Effects+of+Water+Withdrawals+and+Land-Use+Change+on+Streamflow+in+the+Usquepaug-Queen+River+Basin%2C+Rhode+Island&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with Rhode Island Water Resources Board, Providence.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Effect of Water-Column pH on Sediment-Phosphorus Release Rates in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2001
AN  - 20713733; 6261588
AB  - The intent of the investigation was to determine whether the phosphorus release from Upper Klamath Lake sediments, at the photosynthetically elevated pH values measured in the lake, could account for the rapid increase in total phosphorus concentration observed each spring. The study was designed to investigate both the areal phosphorus release rates from sediments at a stable sediment-water interface and the desorption of phosphorus from suspended sediments that would occur during a wind-induced sediment resuspension event. The former investigation is referred to as the Stable Interface Study; the latter is referred to as the Resuspended Sediment Study. An additional objective incorporated into the experimental design was to elevate pH in a manner that would simulate the water chemistry changes that occur during algal photosynthesis. This was then followed by the addition of a small amount of strong base to elevate the pH in the column further for comparison. Additional experimental design objectives were to incorporate a ratio of sediment surface area to water column volume that is characteristic of the lake into the Stable Interface Study, and to use a sediment concentration representative of an extreme, but not rare, wind event in the Resuspended Sediment Study. Because of the nature of column studies in the laboratory, many study designs incorporate an unrealistically large sediment surface area to water column volume ratio when investigating processes at the sediment/water interface and an unrealistically high sediment concentration when investigating resuspension events.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Fisher, L H
AU  - Wood, T M
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 36
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Resuspended Sediment Study
KW  - Stable Interface Study
KW  - Total phosphorus
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4271
KW  - Wind stress
KW  - Photosynthesis
KW  - Lake Sediments
KW  - Pollution dispersion
KW  - Phosphorus
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water column
KW  - Resuspended sediments
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Water springs
KW  - pH effects
KW  - pH
KW  - Wind
KW  - Algae
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Suspended Sediments
KW  - Desorption
KW  - Resuspension
KW  - water chemistry
KW  - Surface area
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Hydrogen Ion Concentration
KW  - Lake deposits
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Sediment-water interface
KW  - Sediment-water Interfaces
KW  - water column
KW  - USA, Oregon, Upper Klamath L.
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - surface area
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - K 03320:Cell Biology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20713733?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Fisher%2C+L+H%3BWood%2C+T+M&rft.aulast=Fisher&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=36&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Effect+of+Water-Column+pH+on+Sediment-Phosphorus+Release+Rates+in+Upper+Klamath+Lake%2C+Oregon%2C+2001&rft.title=Effect+of+Water-Column+pH+on+Sediment-Phosphorus+Release+Rates+in+Upper+Klamath+Lake%2C+Oregon%2C+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A04/MF A01
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-22
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Sedimentation and Occurrence and Trends of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment of 10 Small Reservoirs, Eastern Kansas
AN  - 20391741; 7293314
AB  - Many municipalities in Kansas rely on small reservoirs as a source of drinking water and for recreational activities. Because of their significance to the community, management of the reservoirs and the associated basins is important to protect the reservoirs from degradation. Effective reservoir management requires information about water quality, sedimentation, and sediment quality. Water-quality information is important for determining the suitability of the water in a reservoir for meeting various needs. Also, water-quality trends may be used to describe the overall effect of human activity in a reservoir basin, to indicate the effectiveness of regulatory decisions and changes in land-management practices, and to provide advanced notice of potential future water-quality problems.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Juracek, KY
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 94
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5228
KW  - Sedimentation
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Trends
KW  - Drinking water
KW  - Occurrence
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Nitrogen
KW  - Phosphorus
KW  - Carbon
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Graphs
KW  - Regulations
KW  - water quality
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Sediment chemistry
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Degradation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Reservoir Operation
KW  - Basins
KW  - Man-induced effects
KW  - Bottom Sediments
KW  - USA, Kansas
KW  - Reservoir Management
KW  - Drinking Water
KW  - Recreation areas
KW  - Water management
KW  - Sediment Contamination
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3060:Water treatment and distribution
KW  - Q5 08501:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20391741?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Juracek%2C+KY&rft.aulast=Juracek&rft.aufirst=KY&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=94&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Sedimentation+and+Occurrence+and+Trends+of+Selected+Chemical+Constituents+in+Bottom+Sediment+of+10+Small+Reservoirs%2C+Eastern+Kansas&rft.title=Sedimentation+and+Occurrence+and+Trends+of+Selected+Chemical+Constituents+in+Bottom+Sediment+of+10+Small+Reservoirs%2C+Eastern+Kansas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment, Topeka.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground Water Quality Investigation 4. Historical Surface-Water Quality for the Red River Valley, New Mexico, 1965-2001
AN  - 20390635; 7293273
AB  - Historical water-quality samples collected from the Red River over the past 35 years were compiled, reviewed for quality, and evaluated to determine influences on water quality over time. Hydrologic conditions in the Red River were found to have a major effect on water quality. The lowest sulfate concentrations were associated with the highest flow events, especially peak, rising limb, and falling limb conditions. The highest sulfate concentrations were associated with the early part of the rising limb of summer thunderstorm events and early snowmelt runoff, transient events that can be difficult to capture as part of planned sampling programs but were observed in some of the data. The first increase in flows in the spring, or during summer thunderstorm events, causes a flushing of sulfide oxidation products from scars and mine-disturbed areas to the Red River before being diluted by rising river waters.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Maest, A S
AU  - Nordstrom, D K
AU  - LoVetere, SA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 160
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5063
KW  - Coal mining
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Surface water
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Geology
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Runoff
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Precipitation(Meteorology)
KW  - Red River Valley(New Mexico)
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sulfates
KW  - thunderstorms
KW  - water quality
KW  - Historical account
KW  - USA, New Mexico
KW  - Sulfides
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Thunderstorms
KW  - Reviews
KW  - Canada, Manitoba, Red R.
KW  - Snowmelt
KW  - summer
KW  - Groundwater pollution
KW  - River Flow
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Mining
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - river valleys
KW  - Questa
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20390635?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Maest%2C+A+S%3BNordstrom%2C+D+K%3BLoVetere%2C+SA&rft.aulast=Maest&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=160&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Questa+Baseline+and+Pre-Mining+Ground+Water+Quality+Investigation+4.+Historical+Surface-Water+Quality+for+the+Red+River+Valley%2C+New+Mexico%2C+1965-2001&rft.title=Questa+Baseline+and+Pre-Mining+Ground+Water+Quality+Investigation+4.+Historical+Surface-Water+Quality+for+the+Red+River+Valley%2C+New+Mexico%2C+1965-2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A09/MF A02; Prepared in cooperation with New Mexico Environment Dept., Santa Fe.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Ground-Water Quality of Coastal Aquifer Systems in the West Coast Basin, Los Angeles County, California 1999-2002
AN  - 20389696; 7293527
AB  - The purpose of this report is to present data that describe current ground-water quality conditions of the major aquifer systems in the West Coast Basin, with an emphasis on the Dominguez Gap area. Of particular interest is the occurrence of seawater intrusion and the effects of barrier operations. The scope of this study included (1) collecting and analyzing water samples for major- and minor-ion chemistry, trace elements, and various isotopes; (2) collecting and analyzing pore fluids at continuously cored monitoring sites; (3) characterizing lateral and vertical differences in ground-water chemistry; (4) interpreting the source, movement, and relative age of ground water, with a focus on discriminating between native ground water, seawater, injected water, and oil-field brine; and (5) collecting and analyzing a suite of geophysical logs.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Land, M
AU  - Reichard, E G
AU  - Crawford, S M
AU  - Everett, R R
AU  - Newhouse, M W
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 94
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5067
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - California
KW  - Basins
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Coastal areas
KW  - Occurrence
KW  - Water pollution monitoring
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Ions
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Isotopes
KW  - Los Angeles County(California)
KW  - Age
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - Seawater
KW  - Groundwater Pollution
KW  - Trace Elements
KW  - Coastal Aquifers
KW  - INE, USA, California, Los Angeles Cty.
KW  - Oil fields
KW  - Aquifer Systems
KW  - Geophysics
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Coasts
KW  - Brines
KW  - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION
KW  - SW 0840:Groundwater
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20389696?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Land%2C+M%3BReichard%2C+E+G%3BCrawford%2C+S+M%3BEverett%2C+R+R%3BNewhouse%2C+M+W&rft.aulast=Land&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=94&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Ground-Water+Quality+of+Coastal+Aquifer+Systems+in+the+West+Coast+Basin%2C+Los+Angeles+County%2C+California+1999-2002&rft.title=Ground-Water+Quality+of+Coastal+Aquifer+Systems+in+the+West+Coast+Basin%2C+Los+Angeles+County%2C+California+1999-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Streamflow and Water-Quality Characteristics at Selected Sites of the St. Johns River in Central Florida, 1993-2002
AN  - 20389365; 7293313
AB  - The purpose of this report is to describe the streamflow and water-quality characteristics of the St. Johns River from downstream of Lake Poinsett to near DeLand. Streamflow characteristics were determined by using data collected by the USGS. Streamflow characteristics described include temporal trends and seasonal variations in streamflow. Flow-duration curves and low-flow frequency statistics also are presented. Temporal trends in streamflow were determined at sites with at least 10 years of data using the longest period of record available, which ranged from 16 years (water years 1985-2000) to 68 years (water years 1933-2000). The water year is the 12-month period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the water year ending on September 30, 2000, is called water year 2000.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Kroening, SE
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 114
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5177
KW  - Water quality data
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Florida
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Streams
KW  - Environmental monitoring
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Carbon
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Dissolved oxygen
KW  - Chemical compounds
KW  - Seasonal variations
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Maps
KW  - Trends
KW  - Statistical data
KW  - Saint Johns River(Florida)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Seasonal Variations
KW  - Sites
KW  - Statistics
KW  - USA, Florida
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - USA, South Dakota, Poinsett L.
KW  - Lakes
KW  - downstream
KW  - Downstream
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - Q5 08501:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20389365?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kroening%2C+SE&rft.aulast=Kroening&rft.aufirst=SE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=114&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Streamflow+and+Water-Quality+Characteristics+at+Selected+Sites+of+the+St.+Johns+River+in+Central+Florida%2C+1993-2002&rft.title=Streamflow+and+Water-Quality+Characteristics+at+Selected+Sites+of+the+St.+Johns+River+in+Central+Florida%2C+1993-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrology and Cycling of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Little Bean Marsh: A Remnant Riparian Wetland Along the Missouri River in Platte County, Missouri, 1996-97
AN  - 20387346; 7293757
AB  - The lack of concurrent water-quality and hydrologic data on riparian wetlands in the Midwestern United States has resulted in a lack of knowledge about the water-quality functions that these wetlands provide. Therefore, Little Bean Marsh, a remnant riparian wetland along the Missouri River, was investigated in 1996 and 1997 primarily to determine the magnitude and character of selected water-quality benefits that can be produced in such a wetland and to identify critical processes that can be managed in remnant or restored riparian wetlands for amelioration of water quality.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Blevins, D W
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 92
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5171
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Nitrogen
KW  - Phosphorus
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Dissolved oxygen
KW  - Temperature
KW  - Turbidity
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Runoff
KW  - Denitrification
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Platte County(Missouri)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - USA, Missouri
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - River basin management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - USA, Missouri R.
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Marshes
KW  - Beans
KW  - Water management
KW  - Nitrogen cycle
KW  - Benefits
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - M2 556.53:Rivers, Streams, Canals (556.53)
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20387346?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Blevins%2C+D+W&rft.aulast=Blevins&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=92&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrology+and+Cycling+of+Nitrogen+and+Phosphorus+in+Little+Bean+Marsh%3A+A+Remnant+Riparian+Wetland+Along+the+Missouri+River+in+Platte+County%2C+Missouri%2C+1996-97&rft.title=Hydrology+and+Cycling+of+Nitrogen+and+Phosphorus+in+Little+Bean+Marsh%3A+A+Remnant+Riparian+Wetland+Along+the+Missouri+River+in+Platte+County%2C+Missouri%2C+1996-97&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Sources of Phosphorus to the Carson River Upstream from Lahontan Reservoir, Nevada and California, Water Years 2001-02
AN  - 20385281; 7293548
AB  - Discharge of treated municipal-sewage effluent to the Carson River in western Nevada and eastern California ceased by 1987 and resulted in a substantial decrease in phosphorus concentrations in the Carson River. Nonetheless, concentrations of total phosphorus and suspended sediment still commonly exceed beneficial-use criteria established for the Carson River by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Potential sources of phosphorus in the study area include natural inputs from undisturbed soils, erosion of soils and streambanks, construction of low-head dams and their destruction during floods, manure production and grazing by cattle along streambanks, drainage from fields irrigated with streamwater and treated municipal-sewage effluent, ground-water seepage, and urban runoff including inputs from golf courses. In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with Carson Water Subconservancy District, began an investigation with the overall purpose of providing managers and regulators with information necessary to develop and implement total maximum daily loads for the Carson River. Two specific goals of the investigation were (1) to identify those reaches of the Carson River upstream from Lahontan Reservoir where the greatest increases in phosphorus and suspended-sediment concentrations and loading occur, and (2) to identify the most important sources of phosphorus within the reaches of the Carson River where the greatest increases in concentration and loading occur.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Alvarez, N L
AU  - Seiler, R L
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 100
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5186
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - Investigations
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Phosphorous
KW  - Sewage
KW  - Cattle
KW  - Manure
KW  - Beneficial use
KW  - Carson river
KW  - Lahontan river
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Phosphorus
KW  - USA, Nevada
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Resuspended sediments
KW  - Urban runoff
KW  - upstream
KW  - Feeding behaviour
KW  - Floods
KW  - Dams
KW  - Soils
KW  - USA, California
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - River basin management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Suspended Sediments
KW  - Animal wastes
KW  - Grazing
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Pollution Load
KW  - USA, Nevada, Lahontan Reservoir
KW  - Effluents
KW  - Environmental protection
KW  - USA, California, Carson R.
KW  - Urban Runoff
KW  - seepages
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - P 9000:ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
KW  - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes
KW  - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20385281?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Alvarez%2C+N+L%3BSeiler%2C+R+L&rft.aulast=Alvarez&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=100&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Sources+of+Phosphorus+to+the+Carson+River+Upstream+from+Lahontan+Reservoir%2C+Nevada+and+California%2C+Water+Years+2001-02&rft.title=Sources+of+Phosphorus+to+the+Carson+River+Upstream+from+Lahontan+Reservoir%2C+Nevada+and+California%2C+Water+Years+2001-02&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Integrated Monitoring of Hydrogeomorphic, Vegetative, and Edaphic Conditions in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
AN  - 20268873; 7550832
AB  - In semiarid regions such as the Great Basin, riparian areas function as oases of cooler and more stable microclimates, greater relative humidity, greater structural complexity, and a steady flow of water and nutrients relative to upland areas. These qualities make riparian areas attractive not only to resident and migratory wildlife, but also to visitors in recreation areas such as Great Basin National Park in the Snake Range, east-central Nevada. To expand upon the system of ten permanent plots sampled in 1992 (Smith et al. 1994) and 2001 (Beever et al. in press), we established a collection of 31 cross-sectional transects of 50-m width across the mainstems of Strawberry, Lehman, Baker, and Snake creeks. Our aims in this research were threefold: (a) map riparian vegetative communities in greater detail than had been done by past efforts; (b) provide a monitoring baseline of hydrogeomorphology; structure, composition, and function of upland- and riparian-associated vegetation; and edaphic properties potentially sensitive to management; and (c) test whether instream conditions or physiographic variables predicted vegetation patterns across the four target streams.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Beever, E
AU  - Pyke, DA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 95
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5185
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Geomorphology
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Ecosystems
KW  - National park
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - Streams
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Microclimates
KW  - Soil properties
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Species diversity
KW  - Natural resources management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Relative humidity
KW  - Riparian zone
KW  - Basins
KW  - USA, Nevada
KW  - Fragaria
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Relative Humidity
KW  - Vegetation cover
KW  - USA, Great Basin
KW  - Baseline studies
KW  - Community composition
KW  - Semiarid Lands
KW  - Recreation
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Plant populations
KW  - Oases
KW  - Q2 09263:Topography and morphology
KW  - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20268873?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Beever%2C+E%3BPyke%2C+DA&rft.aulast=Beever&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=95&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Integrated+Monitoring+of+Hydrogeomorphic%2C+Vegetative%2C+and+Edaphic+Conditions+in+Riparian+Ecosystems+of+Great+Basin+National+Park%2C+Nevada&rft.title=Integrated+Monitoring+of+Hydrogeomorphic%2C+Vegetative%2C+and+Edaphic+Conditions+in+Riparian+Ecosystems+of+Great+Basin+National+Park%2C+Nevada&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06 I1: 5185
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Microbiological Water Quality in Relation to Water-Contact Recreation, Cuyahoga River, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio, 2000 and 2002
AN  - 20244284; 7290786
AB  - The microbiological water quality of a 23-mile segment of the Cuyahoga River within the Cuyahoga Valley National part was examined in this study. This segment of the river receives discharges of contaminated water from stormwater, combined-sewer overflows, and incompletely disinfected wastewater. Frequent exceedances of Ohio microbiological water-quality standards result in a health risk to the public who use the river for water-contact recreation. Water samples were collected during the recreational season of May through October at four sites on the Cuyahoga River in 2000, at three sites on the river in 2002, and from the effluent of the Akron Water Pollution Control Station (WPCS) both years. The samples were collected over a similar range in streamflow in 2000 and 2002. Samples were analyzed for physical and chemical constituents, as well as microbiological indicators and pathogenic organisms.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Bushon, R N
AU  - Koltun, G F
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4333
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Bacteria
KW  - Viruses
KW  - Protozoa
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Indicators
KW  - Pathogens
KW  - Streamflows
KW  - Sampling periods
KW  - Data analysis
KW  - Chemical contituents
KW  - Microbiological water quality
KW  - Water
KW  - Cuyahoga River
KW  - Cuyahoga Valley National Park
KW  - water quality
KW  - Disinfection
KW  - Overflow
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - Water Analysis
KW  - National parks
KW  - national parks
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Public health
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Stormwater runoff
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Rivers
KW  - USA, Ohio, Cuyahoga R.
KW  - valleys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Water quality standards
KW  - Effluents
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Water pollution control
KW  - Recreation areas
KW  - overflow
KW  - Microorganisms
KW  - Wastewater discharges
KW  - USA, Ohio
KW  - Waste water
KW  - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - A 01450:Environmental Pollution & Waste Treatment
KW  - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20244284?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bushon%2C+R+N%3BKoltun%2C+G+F&rft.aulast=Bushon&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Microbiological+Water+Quality+in+Relation+to+Water-Contact+Recreation%2C+Cuyahoga+River%2C+Cuyahoga+Valley+National+Park%2C+Ohio%2C+2000+and+2002&rft.title=Microbiological+Water+Quality+in+Relation+to+Water-Contact+Recreation%2C+Cuyahoga+River%2C+Cuyahoga+Valley+National+Park%2C+Ohio%2C+2000+and+2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A04; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 36 page document.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Background and Comparison of Water-Quality, Streambed- Sediment, and Biological Characteristics of Streams in the Viburnum Trend and the Exploration Study Areas, Southern Missouri, 1995 and 2001
AN  - 20193616; 6261595
AB  - The purpose of this report is to document the background water- quality, streambed-sediment, and biological characteristics at sites in the Viburnum Trend study area upstream from mining activities and the exploration study area and compare the data for similarities. Data from three sites sampled during the 1995 Black River synoptic study (Viburnum Trend study area) and four sites in the exploration study area sampled in 2001 are used. For the Black River synoptic survey, water-quality samples were analyzed for major ions, nutrients (because reagents containing organic liquids, nitrogen, and phosphorous compounds are used in milling operations of lead and zinc ore), bacteria, and trace elements. Fish tissue and fine-streambed sediment are collected for trace- element analysis and measurements of in stream and riparian habitat were made. To assess the biological integrity of the system, qualitative and semi-qualitative algae and invertebrate samples were collected to assess the community structure. The methods for the Black River synoptic study were duplicated at four sites in the exploration area study in 2001 to establish background conditions and to compare the two areas of concern. Water-quality samples were analyzed for major ions, nutrients, bacteria, and trace element. Fish tissue and fine-streambed sediment were collected and analyzed for trace elements. Physical measurements of in stream and riparian habitat were made. Invertebrate samples were collected to assess community structure.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Femmer
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4285
KW  - water quality
KW  - Ecosystems
KW  - Heavy metals
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Lead
KW  - invertebrates
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - USA, Missouri
KW  - Sediment Contamination
KW  - Algae
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Viburnum
KW  - rivers
KW  - Habitat
KW  - Community composition
KW  - Aquatic Habitats
KW  - Community structure
KW  - Fish
KW  - Mining
KW  - Nitrogen
KW  - Fluvial Sediments
KW  - Invertebrates
KW  - Streams
KW  - upstream
KW  - Zinc
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Bacteria
KW  - Ions
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Data processing
KW  - Geochemistry
KW  - Trace Elements
KW  - Sediments
KW  - USA, Missouri, Black R.
KW  - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - K 03450:Ecology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20193616?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Femmer&rft.aulast=Femmer&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Background+and+Comparison+of+Water-Quality%2C+Streambed-+Sediment%2C+and+Biological+Characteristics+of+Streams+in+the+Viburnum+Trend+and+the+Exploration+Study+Areas%2C+Southern+Missouri%2C+1995+and+2001&rft.title=Background+and+Comparison+of+Water-Quality%2C+Streambed-+Sediment%2C+and+Biological+Characteristics+of+Streams+in+the+Viburnum+Trend+and+the+Exploration+Study+Areas%2C+Southern+Missouri%2C+1995+and+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A03; This document is color dependent and/or landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 24 page document.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-22
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Wildfire-Related Floods and Debris Flows in Montana in 2000 and 2001
AN  - 20191728; 7290785
AB  - Following extensive wildfires in summer 2000, Montana experienced flooding and debris flows in three different burned areas: (1) the Bitterroot area in south-western Montana, (2) the Canyon Ferry area near Helena, and (3) the Ashland area in southeastern Montana. Flooding and debris flow in the Bitterroot study area began with a large, frontal storm in September-October 2000. No precipitation data were available at sites in the burned area. Daily precipitation at one National Weather Service station near the Bitterroot burn area had a recurrence interval of about 10 years. The storm resulted in debris flows and a peak flood discharge on Little Sleeping Child Creek that had a recurrence interval of about 100 years.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Parrett, C
AU  - Cannon, SH
AU  - Pierce, K L
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4319
KW  - Fires
KW  - Wildfires
KW  - Flood runoff
KW  - Floods
KW  - Montana
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Storms
KW  - Burned areas
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Debris flows
KW  - Canyon Ferry area
KW  - Ashland area
KW  - Bitterroot area
KW  - Burns
KW  - wildfire
KW  - Precipitation data
KW  - Storm Runoff
KW  - River Flow
KW  - National Weather Service
KW  - Daily precipitation
KW  - Detritus
KW  - USA, Montana
KW  - Flood discharges
KW  - Weather
KW  - canyons
KW  - Frontal storms
KW  - Flooding
KW  - summer
KW  - Canyons
KW  - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
KW  - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20191728?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Sustainability+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Parrett%2C+C%3BCannon%2C+SH%3BPierce%2C+K+L&rft.aulast=Parrett&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Wildfire-Related+Floods+and+Debris+Flows+in+Montana+in+2000+and+2001&rft.title=Wildfire-Related+Floods+and+Debris+Flows+in+Montana+in+2000+and+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A03; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 26 page document.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water-Quality Data from 2002 to 2003 and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California
AN  - 20157967; 7293814
AB  - The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected water-quality data during 2002 and 2003 in the Lower Klamath River Basin, in northern California, to support studies of river conditions as they pertain to the viability of Chinook and Coho salmon and endangered suckers. To address the data needs of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH were continuously monitored at sites on the Klamath, Trinity, Shasta, and Lost Rivers. Water-quality samples were collected and analyzed for selected nutrients, organic carbon, chlorophyll-a, pheophytin-a, and trace elements. Sediment oxygen demand was measured on the Shasta River. Results of analysis of the data collected were used to identify locations in the Lower Klamath River Basin and periods of time during 2002 and 2003 when river conditions were more likely to be detrimental to salmonid or sucker health because of occasional high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and conditions that supported abundant populations of algae and aquatic plants. The results were also used to assess gaps in data by furthering the development of the conceptual model of water flow and quality in the Lower Klamath River Basin using available data and the current understanding of processes that affect water quality and by assessing needs for the develoment of mathematical models of the system. The most notable gap in information for the study area is in sufficient knowledge about the occurrence and productivity of algal communities. Other gaps in data include vertical water- quality profiles for the reservoirs in the study area, and in an adequate understanding of the chemical oxygen demands and the sediment oxygen demands in the rivers and of the influence of riparian shading on the rivers. Several mathematical models are discussed in this report for use in characterizing the river systems in the study area; also discussed are the specific data needed for the models, and the spatial and temporal data available as boundary conditions. The models will be useful for the future development of TMDLs for temperature, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen and for assessing the role of natural and anthropogenic sources of heat, oxygen-producing and -consuming substances, and nutrients in the Klamath, Shasta, and Lost Rivers. a
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Flint, LE
AU  - Flint, AL
AU  - Curry, D S
AU  - Rounds, SA
AU  - Doyle, M C
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 90
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5255
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Total maximum daily loads
KW  - Data analysis
KW  - California
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Dissolved oxygen
KW  - Specific conductance
KW  - pH
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - Mathematical models
KW  - Temporal variations
KW  - Spatial variations
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Klamath River Basin
KW  - water quality
KW  - Chlorophylls
KW  - River Basins
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Water Temperature
KW  - Anadromous species
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Oxygen demand
KW  - INE, USA, California
KW  - Riparian environments
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - pH effects
KW  - Algae
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment chemistry
KW  - anthropogenic factors
KW  - Conductance
KW  - Aquatic plants
KW  - Chemical oxygen demand
KW  - River basins
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - Oxygen
KW  - Heat
KW  - Boundaries
KW  - water flow
KW  - Oncorhynchus kisutch
KW  - Sucker
KW  - Mathematical Models
KW  - Fluvial Sediments
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - USA, California, Klamath R.
KW  - Carbon
KW  - water quality control
KW  - Shading
KW  - Coasts
KW  - PSW, Antarctica, Antarctic Peninsula, Graham Land, Trinity
KW  - Temperature effects
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Data processing
KW  - Water flow
KW  - Dissolved Oxygen
KW  - Temperature
KW  - Rare species
KW  - boundary conditions
KW  - Sediments
KW  - water temperature
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - K 03450:Ecology
KW  - Q5 08505:Prevention and control
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20157967?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Flint%2C+LE%3BFlint%2C+AL%3BCurry%2C+D+S%3BRounds%2C+SA%3BDoyle%2C+M+C&rft.aulast=Flint&rft.aufirst=LE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=90&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water-Quality+Data+from+2002+to+2003+and+Analysis+of+Data+Gaps+for+Development+of+Total+Maximum+Daily+Loads+in+the+Lower+Klamath+River+Basin%2C+California&rft.title=Water-Quality+Data+from+2002+to+2003+and+Analysis+of+Data+Gaps+for+Development+of+Total+Maximum+Daily+Loads+in+the+Lower+Klamath+River+Basin%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Simulation of Solute Transport of Tetrachloroethylene in Ground Water of the Glacial-Drift Aquifer at the Savage Municipal Well Superfund Site, Milford, New Hampshire, 1960-2000
AN  - 19986235; 7293722
AB  - The Savage Municipal Well Superfund site, named after the former municipal water-supply well for the town of Milford, is underlain by a 0.5-square mile plume of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The plume occurs mostly within a highly transmissive sand-and-gravel unit, but also extends to an underlying till and bedrock unit. The plume logistically is divided into two areas termed Operable Unit No. 1 (OU1), which contains the primary source area, and Operable Unit No. 2 (OU2), which is the extended plume area.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Harte, P T
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 102
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5176
KW  - Solutes
KW  - Environmental transport
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - New Hampshire
KW  - Tetrachloroethylene
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Glacial aquifers
KW  - Glacial drift
KW  - Plumes
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Water pollution control
KW  - Wells
KW  - Superfund
KW  - Remedial action
KW  - Simulation
KW  - Milford(New Hampshire)
KW  - Sites
KW  - Organic compounds in water
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Groundwater Pollution
KW  - Numerical simulations
KW  - Solute Transport
KW  - towns
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Organic Compounds
KW  - USA, New Hampshire
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Bedrock
KW  - Volatile organic compounds
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 0840:Groundwater
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19986235?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Harte%2C+P+T&rft.aulast=Harte&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=102&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulation+of+Solute+Transport+of+Tetrachloroethylene+in+Ground+Water+of+the+Glacial-Drift+Aquifer+at+the+Savage+Municipal+Well+Superfund+Site%2C+Milford%2C+New+Hampshire%2C+1960-2000&rft.title=Simulation+of+Solute+Transport+of+Tetrachloroethylene+in+Ground+Water+of+the+Glacial-Drift+Aquifer+at+the+Savage+Municipal+Well+Superfund+Site%2C+Milford%2C+New+Hampshire%2C+1960-2000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; Prepared in cooperation with New Hampshire Dept. of Environmental Services, Concord. and Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, MA. Region I.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Ground-Water Quality for Two Areas in the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Northeastern Montana, 1993-2000
AN  - 19974903; 7290784
AB  - Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Fort Peck Tribes during 1979-96 determined that ground-water quality in two areas of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation had been adversely affected by some land-use activities. During the early- and mid- 1990s, saline-water contamination of near-surface Quaternary aquifers in more than 12 square miles in and near the East Poplar oil field was documented and high nitrate concentrations were documented in ground water in a large study area underlain by the Tertiary Flaxville Formation. This report describes additional ground-water-quality investigations for these two areas conducted subsequent to the previous studies.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Thamke, J N
AU  - Midtlyng, K S
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 64
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4214
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Land use
KW  - Site-identification
KW  - Well-naming
KW  - Montana
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Quality control
KW  - Oil fields
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Fort Peck Indian Reservation
KW  - East Popular Oil Field
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Nitrates
KW  - Oil Fields
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Groundwater Pollution
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Groundwater pollution
KW  - Water Quality Control
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - USA, Montana
KW  - quaternary
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.38:Groundwater Basins (556.38)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19974903?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Thamke%2C+J+N%3BMidtlyng%2C+K+S&rft.aulast=Thamke&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=64&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Ground-Water+Quality+for+Two+Areas+in+the+Fort+Peck+Indian+Reservation%2C+Northeastern+Montana%2C+1993-2000&rft.title=Ground-Water+Quality+for+Two+Areas+in+the+Fort+Peck+Indian+Reservation%2C+Northeastern+Montana%2C+1993-2000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A05/MF A01
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground Water Quality, and Simulation of Ground Water Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, Bergen County, New Jersey
AN  - 19969647; 7293330
AB  - Production wells in the Westmoreland well field, Fair Lawn, Bergen County, New Jersey (the 'Fair Lawn well field Superfund site'), are contaminated with volatile organic compounds, particularly trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and 1,1,1- trichloroethane. In 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) placed the Westmoreland well field on its National Priority List of Superfund sites. In an effort to determine ground- water flow directions, contaminant-plume boundaries, and contributing areas to production wells in Fair Lawn, and to evaluate the effect of present pump-and-treat systems on flowpaths of contaminated ground water, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the USEPA, developed a conceptual hydrogeologic framework and ground-water flow model of the study area. MODFLOW-2000, the USGS three-dimensional finite-difference model, was used to delineate contributing areas to production wells in Fair Lawn and to compute flowpaths of contaminated ground water from three potential contaminant sources to the Westmoreland well field. Straddle-packer tests were used to determine the hydrologic framework of, distribution of contaminants in, and hydrologic properties of water-bearing and confining units that make up the fractured-rock aquifer underlying the study area. The study area consists of about 15 square miles in and near Fair Lawn.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Lewis-Brown, J C
AU  - Rice, DE
AU  - Rosman, R
AU  - Smith, N P
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 126
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5280
KW  - Groundwater movement
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Computerized simulation
KW  - Aquifer systems
KW  - Water pollution monitoring
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Base flow
KW  - Travel time
KW  - Specific capacity
KW  - Environmental transport
KW  - Geophysical surveys
KW  - Hydrologic models
KW  - Flow paths
KW  - Volatile organic compounds
KW  - Bergen County(New Jersey)
KW  - Westmoreland well field
KW  - USA, New Jersey
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Groundwater Pollution
KW  - Lawns
KW  - Hydrologic Models
KW  - Pollutants
KW  - Trichloroethylene
KW  - Superfund
KW  - Solvents
KW  - Flow Discharge
KW  - Simulation
KW  - Soil contamination
KW  - Norway, Hordaland, Bergen
KW  - EPA
KW  - Wells
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - water flow
KW  - Groundwater pollution
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19969647?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lewis-Brown%2C+J+C%3BRice%2C+DE%3BRosman%2C+R%3BSmith%2C+N+P&rft.aulast=Lewis-Brown&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=126&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrogeologic+Framework%2C+Ground+Water+Quality%2C+and+Simulation+of+Ground+Water+Flow+at+the+Fair+Lawn+Well+Field+Superfund+Site%2C+Bergen+County%2C+New+Jersey&rft.title=Hydrogeologic+Framework%2C+Ground+Water+Quality%2C+and+Simulation+of+Ground+Water+Flow+at+the+Fair+Lawn+Well+Field+Superfund+Site%2C+Bergen+County%2C+New+Jersey&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Development and Application of Watershed Regressions for Pesticides (WARP) for Estimating Atrazine Concentration Distributions in Streams
AN  - 19931429; 6261590
AB  - This report describes new WARP models for atrazine. Improvements over previous work (Larson and Gilliom, 2001) include an increase in the number of concentration percentiles modeled; expansion of the model development data set, both in the number of stations used and the time period covered; expansion of the data set used for model validation; use of standardized criteria for inclusion of stations; and the use of more rigorous timeweighting procedures for computing concentration percentiles and annual mean concentrations. In addition, seasonal models were developed for the high season (the application period and the period of potential runoff to streams) and the low season (the remainder of the year) using the WARP method. The seasonal models provide estimates of concentration percentiles and the mean concentration for each of these two periods of the year. Separate seasonal estimates of atrazine concentration distributions may be useful for risk-assessment applications. One purpose of this study is to provide support to the USEPA for risk assessments associated with the FQPA. Owing to the large uncertainties associated with these risk assessments, and the use of safety factors in the risk calculations, a relatively large uncertainty (for example, plus or minus 1 order of magnitude) can be tolerated in the concentrations predicted from models used for the drinking water part of the risk assessments. For this reason, comparisons between predicted and observed concentrations in this report often are in terms of the percentage of predictions within an order of magnitude of the observed values, although the actual prediction errors for the atrazine models described in this report often were substantially less than an order of magnitude.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Larson, S J
AU  - Crawford, C G
AU  - Gilliom, R J
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Atrazine
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4047
KW  - Prediction
KW  - Risk assessment
KW  - Pollution monitoring
KW  - Agricultural Runoff
KW  - Water Pollution Sources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Streams
KW  - Agricultural Chemicals
KW  - Sulfur dioxide
KW  - Assessments
KW  - Pollutants
KW  - Stream Pollution
KW  - Seasonal variability
KW  - Seasonal variations
KW  - Modelling
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Pesticides in river water
KW  - Standards
KW  - River water pollution
KW  - Drinking water
KW  - Runoff
KW  - M2 556.53:Rivers, Streams, Canals (556.53)
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - Q2 09182:Methods and instruments
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19931429?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Larson%2C+S+J%3BCrawford%2C+C+G%3BGilliom%2C+R+J&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Development+and+Application+of+Watershed+Regressions+for+Pesticides+%28WARP%29+for+Estimating+Atrazine+Concentration+Distributions+in+Streams&rft.title=Development+and+Application+of+Watershed+Regressions+for+Pesticides+%28WARP%29+for+Estimating+Atrazine+Concentration+Distributions+in+Streams&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A06; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 80 page document. Sponsored by Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA. Region IX.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Occurrence and Implications of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether and Gasoline Hydrocarbons in Ground Water and Source Water in the United States and in Drinking Water in 12 Northeast and Mid- Atlantic States, 1993-2002
AN  - 19931322; 6261592
AB  - The purpose of this report is to describe the occurrence and implications of MTBE and gasoline hydrocarbons in ground water, source water, and drinking water from data collected or compiled by the U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program and cooperators. In this report, gasoline hydrocarbons refers to a select group of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) whose primary use is believed to be in gasoline and includes the BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) compounds as well as naphthalene, n-butylbenzene, iso- propylbenzene, styrene, and 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene. Although these VOCs are components of gasoline, they do have other domestic, commercial, and industrial uses, and they may have other sources to ground water in addition to gasoline.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Moran, MJ
AU  - Zogorski, J S
AU  - Squillace, P J
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 38
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - MTBE
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4200
KW  - Styrene
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water Pollution Sources
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Gasoline
KW  - Toluene
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Naphthalene
KW  - Groundwater Pollution
KW  - Surface Water
KW  - Benzene
KW  - volatile hydrocarbons
KW  - USA, Mid-Atlantic
KW  - Drinking Water
KW  - Assessments
KW  - ANE, Atlantic
KW  - Organic Compounds
KW  - Ethers
KW  - Drinking water
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Volatile organic compounds
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19931322?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Moran%2C+MJ%3BZogorski%2C+J+S%3BSquillace%2C+P+J&rft.aulast=Moran&rft.aufirst=MJ&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=38&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Occurrence+and+Implications+of+Methyl+tert-Butyl+Ether+and+Gasoline+Hydrocarbons+in+Ground+Water+and+Source+Water+in+the+United+States+and+in+Drinking+Water+in+12+Northeast+and+Mid-+Atlantic+States%2C+1993-2002&rft.title=Occurrence+and+Implications+of+Methyl+tert-Butyl+Ether+and+Gasoline+Hydrocarbons+in+Ground+Water+and+Source+Water+in+the+United+States+and+in+Drinking+Water+in+12+Northeast+and+Mid-+Atlantic+States%2C+1993-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A04/MF A01
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Ground-Water Quality and its Relation to Land Use on Oahu, Hawaii, 2000-01
AN  - 19926121; 6261606
AB  - Water quality in the main drinking-water source aquifers of Oahu was assessed by a onetime sampling of untreated ground water from 30 public-supply wells and 15 monitoring wells. The 384 square-mile study area, which includes urban Honolulu and large tracts of forested, agricultural, and suburban residential lands in central Oahu, accounts for 93 percent of the island's groundwater withdrawals. Organic compounds were detected in 73 percent of public-supply wells, but mostly at low concentrations below minimum reporting levels. Concentrations exceeded drinking- water standards in just a few cases: the solvent trichloroethene and the radionuclide radon-222 exceeded Federal standards in one public-supply well each, and the fumigants 1,2-dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP) and 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) exceeded State standards in three public-supply wells each. Solvents, fumigants, trihalomethanes, and herbicides were prevalent (detected in more than 30 percent of samples) but gasoline components and insecticides were detected in few wells. Most water samples contained complex mixtures of organic compounds: multiple solvents, fumigants, or herbicides, and in some cases compounds from two or all three of these classes.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Hunt, C D
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4305
KW  - Land Use
KW  - water quality
KW  - Chlorophylls
KW  - Gasoline
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water resources
KW  - fumigants
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards
KW  - Insecticides
KW  - USA, Hawaii
KW  - Land use
KW  - Water samples
KW  - Radioisotopes
KW  - Organic Compounds
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Pollution monitoring
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - Water Analysis
KW  - Water Pollution Sources
KW  - Fumigants
KW  - Byproducts
KW  - Groundwater Pollution
KW  - Agricultural land
KW  - Drinking Water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Solvents
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - USA, Hawaii, Oahu I.
KW  - Water quality standards
KW  - USA, Hawaii, Oahu I., Honolulu
KW  - Wells
KW  - Trihalomethanes
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Chlorination
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Drinking water
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M3 1130:Water
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19926121?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Hunt%2C+C+D&rft.aulast=Hunt&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Ground-Water+Quality+and+its+Relation+to+Land+Use+on+Oahu%2C+Hawaii%2C+2000-01&rft.title=Ground-Water+Quality+and+its+Relation+to+Land+Use+on+Oahu%2C+Hawaii%2C+2000-01&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A05; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 67 page document. Sponsored by Geological Survey, Reston, VA. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Sources and Transport of Nutrients, Organic Carbon, and Chlorophyll-a in the San Joaquin River Upstream of Vernalis, California, during Summer and Fall, 2000 and 2001
AN  - 19919065; 6261593
AB  - The primary purpose of this study was to define the sources and transport of nutrients, organic carbon, and chlorophyll-a in the upstream San Joaquin Basin, above Vernalis. A secondary purpose was to compare nutrient loads and concentrations from the 1970s and 1980s to the present (Kratzer and Shelton, 1998). This study was funded by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The sampling in this study was coordinated with an independent study conducted in the study area by the University of California at Davis (UCD). The UCD study was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the food resources to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Kratzer, C R
AU  - Dileanis, P D
AU  - Zamora, C
AU  - Silva
AU  - Kendall, C
AU  - Bergamaschi, BA
AU  - Dahlgren, R A
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4127
KW  - Chlorophylls
KW  - USA, California, San Joaquin Basin
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - INE, USA, Washington, Shelton
KW  - Water Sampling
KW  - Nutrient loading
KW  - Organic carbon
KW  - Basins
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Deltas
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Comparative studies
KW  - upstream
KW  - USA, California, San Joaquin R.
KW  - Chlorophyll A
KW  - deltas
KW  - Transport processes
KW  - Environmental monitoring
KW  - Rivers
KW  - USA, California, Sacramento
KW  - Organic Carbon
KW  - INE, USA, California, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Pollution Load
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - nutrients
KW  - USA, California, Davis
KW  - summer
KW  - Fish
KW  - Nutrients (mineral)
KW  - food resources
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - Q2 09184:Composition of water
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19919065?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kratzer%2C+C+R%3BDileanis%2C+P+D%3BZamora%2C+C%3BSilva%3BKendall%2C+C%3BBergamaschi%2C+BA%3BDahlgren%2C+R+A&rft.aulast=Kratzer&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Sources+and+Transport+of+Nutrients%2C+Organic+Carbon%2C+and+Chlorophyll-a+in+the+San+Joaquin+River+Upstream+of+Vernalis%2C+California%2C+during+Summer+and+Fall%2C+2000+and+2001&rft.title=Sources+and+Transport+of+Nutrients%2C+Organic+Carbon%2C+and+Chlorophyll-a+in+the+San+Joaquin+River+Upstream+of+Vernalis%2C+California%2C+during+Summer+and+Fall%2C+2000+and+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A07; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 124 page document. Prepared in cooperation with Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. Water Resources Div. and California Univ., Davis.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Alaska, Water Year 2002
AN  - 19584551; 7294971
AB  - Water resources data for the 2002 water year for Alaska consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stages of lakes; and water levels and water quality of ground water. This volume contains records for water discharge at 109 gaging stations; stage or contents only at 5 gaging stations; water quality at 26 gaging stations; and water levels for 45 observation wells. Also included are data for 32 crest-stage partial-record stations. Additional water data were collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. Some data collected during 2002 will be published in subsequent reports. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alaska.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Meyer, D F
AU  - Brinton, J S
AU  - Hess, D L
AU  - Smith, C W
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 432
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-AK-02-1
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water levels
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - Gauges
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - USA, Alaska
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19584551?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Meyer%2C+D+F%3BBrinton%2C+J+S%3BHess%2C+D+L%3BSmith%2C+C+W&rft.aulast=Meyer&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=432&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Alaska%2C+Water+Year+2002&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Alaska%2C+Water+Year+2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A20/MF A04; See also report for 2001, PB2003-102244 and 2003, PB2006- 100564.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Hawaii and Other Pacific Areas, Water Year 2004. Volume 1. Hawaii
AN  - 19584544; 7294970
AB  - Water resources data for the 2004 water year for Hawaii consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams and springs; water levels and quality of water wells; and rainfall totals. Water discharge for 66 gaging stations on streams, springs, and ditches. Water-quality data for 4 streams, and 1 well. Water levels for 42 observation wells. Rainfall data for 37 rainfall stations. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal, State, and other local agencies in Hawaii.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Shimizu, B H
AU  - Nishimoto, D C
AU  - Taogoshi, R I
AU  - Teeters, P C
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 338
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-HI-04-1
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Stage-discharge relations
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Streams
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Wells
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Graphs
KW  - Water tables
KW  - Rainfall
KW  - Measurements
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Springs
KW  - Rainfall data
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Stages
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - I, Pacific
KW  - Water springs
KW  - USA, Hawaii
KW  - ISE, USA, Hawaii
KW  - River discharge
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19584544?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Shimizu%2C+B+H%3BNishimoto%2C+D+C%3BTaogoshi%2C+R+I%3BTeeters%2C+P+C&rft.aulast=Shimizu&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=338&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Hawaii+and+Other+Pacific+Areas%2C+Water+Year+2004.+Volume+1.+Hawaii&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Hawaii+and+Other+Pacific+Areas%2C+Water+Year+2004.+Volume+1.+Hawaii&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; and email at orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A16; See also rept. 2003, PB2006-110363.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data, Kansas, Water Year 2004
AN  - 19584528; 7294969
AB  - Water-resources data for the 2004 water year for Kansas consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; elevation and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels of ground-water wells. This report contains records for water discharge at 155 complete-record gaging stations; elevation and contents at 17 lakes and reservoirs; water-quality records at 2 precipitation stations, water-level data at 14 observation wells; and records of specific conductance, pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity at 16 gaging stations and 2 lakes with water-quality monitors. Also included are discharge data for 29 high-flow partial-record stations. These data represent that part of the National Water Information System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with local, State, and Federal agencies in Kansas.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Putnam, JE
AU  - Schneider
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 664
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-KS-04-1
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rate
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Chemical analyses
KW  - Water temperatures
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Water analyses
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - Oxygen isotopes in precipitation
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Dissolved oxygen
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - pH
KW  - River discharge
KW  - USA, Kansas
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - water levels
KW  - Elevation
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - water temperature
KW  - Turbidity
KW  - Information systems
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19584528?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Putnam%2C+JE%3BSchneider&rft.aulast=Putnam&rft.aufirst=JE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=664&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Kansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Kansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A99/MF A06; See also rept. for Water Year 2005, PB2006-110290.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Minnesota, Water Year 2004 (on CD- ROM)
AN  - 19584518; 7294966
AB  - Water resources data for the 2004 water year for Minnesota consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage of lakes and reservoirs; ground-water quality; and water quality in wells. This report contains discharge records for 110 stream-gaging stations; stage for 12 lakes and reservoirs; water quality for 12 stream-gaging stations; peak flow data for 87 highflow partial-record stations, and water levels for 2 ground water observation wells. Additional water data were collected at various sites that are not part of the systematic data collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey for cooperating State and Federal agencies in Minnesota.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/MN-04-CD
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Streams
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - CD-ROM
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Gauges
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Reservoir water quality
KW  - Data processing
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - USA, Minnesota
KW  - water levels
KW  - Data Processing
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - browsing
KW  - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19584518?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Minnesota%2C+Water+Year+2004+%28on+CD-+ROM%29&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Minnesota%2C+Water+Year+2004+%28on+CD-+ROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Data can be viewed, copied, or printed from most Web browsing software packages and are available in two formats: HTML files and tabular files. An HTML file is a text file that can be read by a Web browser. A tabular file is a text file consisting of tabular data that can be transferred into common software packages for data processing and analysis. NTIS Prices: CD-ROM CP D01; Minimum Requirements: World Wide Web browsing software and CD- ROM drive with ISO 9660 software driver. Web browsing software is not provided.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data, Mississippi, Water Year 2004
AN  - 19584444; 7294964
AB  - Water resources data for the 2004 water year for Mississippi consist of records of surface water and ground water in the State. Specifically, it contains: (1) Discharge records for 90 streamflow- gaging stations, stage records for 18 of these gaging stations, discharge records for 97 partial-record stations or miscellaneous streamflow sites, including 6 flood hydrograph partial-record stations, 91 crest-stage partial-record stations, and 0 special study and miscellaneous sites; (2) stage only at 1 gaging station; (3) water-quality records for 12 streamflow-gaging stations, 0 stage-only stations, 13 water-quality monitor stations, 0 partial- record stations or miscellaneous sites, 0 short-term study sites, and 26 wells; and (4) water-level records for 19 observation wells. Records obtained from water-resources investigations are also included in special sections of the report. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, county, municipal, and other Federal agencies in Mississippi.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Morris, F
AU  - Runner
AU  - Storm, J B
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 304
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-MS-04-1
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water temperatures
KW  - Water analysis
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Flood hydrographs
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Gauges
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Floods
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - Flood Hydrographs
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - USA, Mississippi
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19584444?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Morris%2C+F%3BRunner%3BStorm%2C+J+B&rft.aulast=Morris&rft.aufirst=F&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=304&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Mississippi%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Mississippi%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A15/MF A03; See also PB2003-105802.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data, Ohio, Water Year 2003. Volume Two. St. Lawrence River Basin and Statewide Project Data
AN  - 19583977; 7294960
AB  - Water-resources data for the 2003 water year for Ohio consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels and water quality of ground-water wells. This report, in two volumes, contains records for water discharge at 138 gaging stations and various partial-record sites; water levels at 217 observation wells and 35 crest-stage gages; and water quality at 30 gaging stations, 34 observation wells, and no partial-record sites. Also included are data from miscellaneous and synoptic sites. Additional water data were collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. These data represent that part of the National Water Information System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal, State, and local agencies in Ohio.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Shindel, H L
AU  - Mangus, J P
AU  - Frum
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 320
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/OH-03-2
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Stremflow
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Water quality
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - River basins
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Canada, Quebec, St. Lawrence R.
KW  - Gages
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - USA, Ohio
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Information systems
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19583977?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Shindel%2C+H+L%3BMangus%2C+J+P%3BFrum&rft.aulast=Shindel&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=320&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Ohio%2C+Water+Year+2003.+Volume+Two.+St.+Lawrence+River+Basin+and+Statewide+Project+Data&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Ohio%2C+Water+Year+2003.+Volume+Two.+St.+Lawrence+River+Basin+and+Statewide+Project+Data&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A15/MF A03; See also PB2005-100908.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data Alabama, Water Year 2004
AN  - 19582860; 7294967
AB  - Water resources data for the 2004 water year for Alabama consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stages and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels in wells. This report includes records on both surface and ground water in the State. Specifically, it contains: (1) discharge records for 131 streamflow-gaging stations, for 19 partial-record or miscellaneous streamflow stations; (2) stage and content records for 16 lakes and reservoirs and stage at 44 stations; (3) water-quality records for 21 streamflow-gaging stations, for 11 ungaged streamsites, and for 1 precipitation stations; (4) water temperature at 20 surface-water stations; (5) specific conductance and dissolved oxygen at 20 stations; (6) turbidity at 5 stations; (7) sediment data at 6 stations; (8) water-level records for 2 recording observation wells; and (9) water-quality records for 6 ground-water stations. Also included are lists of active and discontinued continuous-record surface- water-quality stations, and partial-record and miscellaneous surface- water-quality stations. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal, State, and local agencies in Alabama.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Psinakis, W L
AU  - Lambeth, D S
AU  - Stricklin, V E
AU  - Treece, M W
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 620
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-AL-04-1
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Flow rate
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Streams
KW  - Chemical analyses
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water temperatures
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Water analyses
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - Oxygen isotopes in precipitation
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Dissolved oxygen
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - USA, Alabama
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Sediment chemistry
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - water temperature
KW  - Turbidity
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582860?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Psinakis%2C+W+L%3BLambeth%2C+D+S%3BStricklin%2C+V+E%3BTreece%2C+M+W&rft.aulast=Psinakis&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=620&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+Alabama%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+Alabama%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A99/MF A06; See also PB2005-101719. Sponsored by Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management, Montgomery. and Alabama Dept. of Transportation, Montgomery.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data: Connecticut, Water Year 2004
AN  - 19582835; 7294962
AB  - This report includes records on both surface and ground water in the State. Specifically, it contains: (1) discharge records for 51 streamflow-gaging stations and for 42 partial-record streamflow stations and miscellaneous sites; (2) stage-only records for 4 tidal-gaging stations; (3) water-quality records for 16 streamflow- gaging stations, for 20 ungaged stream sites, and temperature at 1 reservoir site; and (4) water-level records for 74 observation wells. Additional data are published for 3 miscellaneous surface- water sites and for 60 miscellaneous ground-water sites, which were not part of the systematic data-collection program.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Morrison, J
AU  - Provencher, P L
AU  - Martin, J W
AU  - Norris, J R
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 402
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/CT-04/1
KW  - Connecticut
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Discharge
KW  - Stream gages
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - USA, Connecticut
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - Gauges
KW  - Reservoir Sites
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Temperature
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582835?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Morrison%2C+J%3BProvencher%2C+P+L%3BMartin%2C+J+W%3BNorris%2C+J+R&rft.aulast=Morrison&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=402&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%3A+Connecticut%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%3A+Connecticut%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A19
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data Arkansas, Water Year 2004
AN  - 19582602; 7294961
AB  - The U.S. Geological Survey Arkansas Water Science Center, in cooperation with State, Federal, and other local governmental agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Arkansas each year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable database for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. Water resources data reported for the 2004 water year for Arkansas consist of records of discharge and water quality (physical measurements and chemical concentrations) of streams, water quality of lakes, and ground-water levels and ground-water quality. Data from selected sites in Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma also are included. This report contains daily discharge records for 104 surface-water gaging stations, 82 peak-discharge partial-record stations, 8 stage-only stations, water-quality data for 79 surface-water stations and 16 wells, and water levels for 47 observation wells. Additional water data were collected at various sites, not part of the systematic data-collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Evans, DA
AU  - Brossett, TH
AU  - Schrader, T P
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 480
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/AR-04-1
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Chemical analyses
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water level
KW  - Water analysis
KW  - US Geological Survey(USGS)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - Gauges
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - USA, Oklahoma
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - USA, Louisiana
KW  - USA, Missouri
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - USA, Arkansas
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582602?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Evans%2C+DA%3BBrossett%2C+TH%3BSchrader%2C+T+P&rft.aulast=Evans&rft.aufirst=DA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=480&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+Arkansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+Arkansas%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A22/MF A04; See also PB2005-102913.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data, Ohio, Water Year 2003. Volume One. Ohio River Basin Excluding Project Data
AN  - 19582562; 7294959
AB  - Water-resources data for the 2003 water year for Ohio consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels and water quality of ground-water wells. This report, in two volumes, contains records for water discharge at 138 gaging stations and various partial-record sites; water levels at 217 observation wells and 35 crest-stage gages; and water quality at 30 gaging stations, 34 observation wells, and no partial-record sites. Also included are data from miscellaneous and synoptic sites. Additional water data were collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. These data represent that part of the National Water Information System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal, State, and local agencies in Ohio.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Shindel, H L
AU  - Mangus, J P
AU  - Frum
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 388
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/OH-03-1
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Stremflow
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Water quality
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Gauges
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - USA, Kentucky, Ohio R. basin
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - River basins
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Gages
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Information systems
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582562?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Shindel%2C+H+L%3BMangus%2C+J+P%3BFrum&rft.aulast=Shindel&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=388&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Ohio%2C+Water+Year+2003.+Volume+One.+Ohio+River+Basin+Excluding+Project+Data&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Ohio%2C+Water+Year+2003.+Volume+One.+Ohio+River+Basin+Excluding+Project+Data&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A18/MF A04; See also PB2003-107001 and PB2005-100909.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data, Indiana, Water Year 2004
AN  - 19582543; 7294965
AB  - Water-resources data for the 2004 water year for Indiana consists of records of discharge, stage, and water quality of streams and wells; reservoir stage and contents; and water levels in lakes and wells. This report contains records of discharge for 127 stream-gaging stations, stage for 16 stream stations, stage and contents for 1 reservoir, water quality for 7 streams, water temperature at 17 sites, sediment analysis for 1 stream, water levels for 9 lakes and 37 observation wells. Also included are records of miscellaneous discharge measurements, miscellaneous levels and miscellaneous water quality, not part of the systematic data-collection program. Data contained in this report represent that part of the National Water Information System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey in Indiana in cooperation with State and Federal agencies.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Morlock, SE
AU  - Nguyen, H T
AU  - Majors, D K
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 528
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-IN-04-1
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Water temperatures
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Water analyses
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Sediment analysis
KW  - US Geological Survey(USGS)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Gauges
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Reservoir water quality
KW  - sediment analysis
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - South Georgia, 9 L.
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - USA, Indiana
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - water temperature
KW  - Information systems
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582543?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Morlock%2C+SE%3BNguyen%2C+H+T%3BMajors%2C+D+K&rft.aulast=Morlock&rft.aufirst=SE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=528&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Indiana%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Indiana%2C+Water+Year+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A24/MF A04; See also PB2005-102916.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for Calendar Year 2000 and Average Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow by Hydrographic Area, Nevada
AN  - 19582232; 7293545
AB  - Nevada's reliance on ground-water resources has increased because of increased development and surface-water resources being fully appropriated. The need to accurately quantify Nevada's water resources and water use is more critical than ever to meet future demands. Estimated ground-water pumpage, artificial and natural recharge, and interbasin flow can be used to help evaluate stresses on aquifer systems. In this report, estimates of ground- water pumpage and artificial recharge during calendar year 2000 were made using data from a variety of sources, such as reported estimates and estimates made using Landsat satellite imagery. Average annual natural recharge and interbasin flow were compiled from published reports.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Lopes, T J
AU  - Evetts, D M
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 92
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5239
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Groundwater recharge
KW  - Eater resourcrs
KW  - Investigations
KW  - Interbasin transfers
KW  - Remote Sensing
KW  - Satellite Technology
KW  - Aquifer systems
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Stress
KW  - LANDSAT
KW  - USA, Nevada
KW  - Artificial Recharge
KW  - Natural Recharge
KW  - Aquifer recharge
KW  - Pumpage
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - SW 2040:Groundwater management
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lopes%2C+T+J%3BEvetts%2C+D+M&rft.aulast=Lopes&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=92&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Ground-Water+Pumpage+and+Artificial+Recharge+Estimates+for+Calendar+Year+2000+and+Average+Annual+Natural+Recharge+and+Interbasin+Flow+by+Hydrographic+Area%2C+Nevada&rft.title=Ground-Water+Pumpage+and+Artificial+Recharge+Estimates+for+Calendar+Year+2000+and+Average+Annual+Natural+Recharge+and+Interbasin+Flow+by+Hydrographic+Area%2C+Nevada&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06/MF A01; Prepared in cooperation with Nevada Div. of Environmental Protection, Carson City.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona
AN  - 19582209; 7293336
AB  - This report presents the findings of an investigation into the hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) under the auspices of the State of Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative (RWI). The study is one of three conducted by the USGS in a contiguous area covering about 17,000 mi in central and northern Arizona. The purpose of the RWI is to provide assistance to rural Arizona communities in defining and solving local water resources issues. The purpose of the USGS studies is to increase understanding of the ground-water flow systems in the Mogollon Highlands, the middle and upper Verde River watersheds, and the Coconino Plateau and in particular to assess the extent and availability of water resources, define ground-water flow paths and the relations among different sources of ground water, define the relations between surface-water flow and ground water, and assess the effects of continued development on the water resources of the areas.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Parker, JTC
AU  - Steinkampf, W C
AU  - Flynn, ME
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 104
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5294
KW  - Groundwater movement
KW  - Hudrogeology
KW  - Mogollon Highlands (Arizona)
KW  - Flow paths
KW  - Maps
KW  - Graphs
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Rural watershed initiative (RWI)
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Spain, Granada, Almunecar, Verde R.
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Geological surveys
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - USA, Arizona
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Resource development
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09261:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19582209?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Parker%2C+JTC%3BSteinkampf%2C+W+C%3BFlynn%2C+ME&rft.aulast=Parker&rft.aufirst=JTC&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=104&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrogeology+of+the+Mogollon+Highlands%2C+Central+Arizona&rft.title=Hydrogeology+of+the+Mogollon+Highlands%2C+Central+Arizona&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; Prepared in cooperation with Arizona Dept. of Water Resources, Phoenix.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Evaluation of Geohydrologic Framework, Recharge Estimates, and Ground-Water Flow of the Joshua Tree Area, San Bernardino County, California
AN  - 19581979; 7293552
AB  - In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a cooperative study with Joshua Basin Water District to (1) improve the understanding of the geohydrologic framework of the Joshua Tree and Copper Mountain ground-water subbasins, (2) determine the distribution and quantity of recharge in the subbasins using field and numerical techniques, and (3) develop a ground-water flow model to help manage the water resources of the region. This report presents the results of this cooperative study.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Nishikawa, T
AU  - Izbicki, JA
AU  - Hevesi, JA
AU  - Stamos, CL
AU  - Martin, P
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 132
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5267
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water flow
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - California
KW  - Groundwater recharge
KW  - Water management
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Ions
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Drainage basin
KW  - Topography
KW  - Stratigraphy
KW  - San Bernardino County(California)
KW  - Trees
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Evaluation
KW  - Groundwater flow models
KW  - Cooperatives
KW  - USA, California
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - Groundwater Recharge
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - SW 0810:General
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19581979?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Nishikawa%2C+T%3BIzbicki%2C+JA%3BHevesi%2C+JA%3BStamos%2C+CL%3BMartin%2C+P&rft.aulast=Nishikawa&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=132&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Geohydrologic+Framework%2C+Recharge+Estimates%2C+and+Ground-Water+Flow+of+the+Joshua+Tree+Area%2C+San+Bernardino+County%2C+California&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Geohydrologic+Framework%2C+Recharge+Estimates%2C+and+Ground-Water+Flow+of+the+Joshua+Tree+Area%2C+San+Bernardino+County%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data, Florida, Water 2004. Volume 1B. Northeast Florida Surface Water
AN  - 19581940; 7294963
AB  - Water resources data for the 2004 water year in Florida consist of continuous or daily discharge for 405 streams, periodic discharge for 12 streams, continuous or daily stage for 159 streams, periodic stage for 19 streams, peak stage and discharge for 30 streams; continuous or daily elevations for 14 lakes, periodic elevations for 23 lakes; continuous ground-water levels for 408 wells, periodic ground-water levels for 1,157 wells; quality-of-water data for 140 surface-water sites and 239 wells. The data for northeast Florida include continuous or daily discharge for 140 streams, periodic discharge for 4 streams, continuous or daily stage for 58 streams, periodic stage for 3 streams; peak stage and discharge for 0 streams; continuous or daily elevations for 10 lakes, periodic elevations for 20 lakes; continuous ground water levels for 50 wells, periodic ground-water levels for 522 wells; quality-of-water data for 40 surface-water sites and 66 wells. These data represent the National Water Data System records collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating local, State and Federal agencies in Florida.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Nazarian
AU  - Simonds, E P
AU  - Dickerson, S M
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 406
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-FL-04-1A
KW  - Florida
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - River basins
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Water temperatures
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water analysis
KW  - Elevations
KW  - Northeastern Region(Florida)
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - USA, Florida
KW  - Data reports
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Wells
KW  - Elevation
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19581940?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Nazarian%3BSimonds%2C+E+P%3BDickerson%2C+S+M&rft.aulast=Nazarian&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=406&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Florida%2C+Water+2004.+Volume+1B.+Northeast+Florida+Surface+Water&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data%2C+Florida%2C+Water+2004.+Volume+1B.+Northeast+Florida+Surface+Water&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A19/MF A04; See also PB2003-100166.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Empirical, Dimensionless, Cumulative-Rainfall Hyetographs Developed from 1959-86 Storm Data for Selected Small Watersheds in Texas
AN  - 19581877; 7293213
AB  - A database of incremental cumulative-rainfall values for storms that occurred in urban and small rural watersheds in north and south central Texas during the period 1959 to 1986 was used to develop empirical, dimensionless, cumulative-rainfall hyetographs. Storm-quartile classifications were determined from the cumulative- rainfall values, which were divided into data groups on the basis of storm-quartile classification (first, second, third, fourth, and first through fourth combined), storm duration (0 to 6, 6 to 12, 12 to 24, 24 to 72, and 0 to 72 hours), and rainfall amount (1 inch or more). Removal of long leading tails, in effect, shortened the storm duration and, in some cases, affected the storm-quartile classification. Therefore, two storm groups, untrimmed and trimmed, were used for analysis. The trimmed storms generally are preferred for interpretation. For a 12- hour or less trimmed storm duration, approximately 49 percent of the storms are first quartile. For trimmed storm durations of 12 to 24 and 24 to 72 hours, 47 and 38 percent, respectively, of the storms are first quartile. For a trimmed storm duration of 0 to 72 hours, the first- , second-, third-, and fourth-quartile storms accounted for 46, 21, 20, and 13 percent of all storms, respectively. The 90th- percentile curve for first-quartile storms indicated about 90 percent of the cumulative rainfall occurs during the first 20 percent of the storm duration. The 10th-percentile curve for first- quartile storms indicated about 30 percent of the cumulative rainfall occurs during the first 20 percent of the storm duration. The 90th-percentile curve for fourth-quartile storms indicated about 33 percent of the cumulative rainfall occurs during the first 20 percent of the storm duration. The 10th-percentile curve for fourth-quartile storms indicated less than 5 percent of the cumulative rainfall occurs during the first 20 percent of the storm duration. Statistics for the empirical, dimensionless, cumulative-rainfall hyetographs are presented in the report along with hyetograph curves and tables. The curves and tables presented do not present exact mathematical relations but can be used to estimate distributions of rainfall with time for small drainage areas of less than about 160 square miles in urban and small rural watersheds north and south central in Texas.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Williams-Sether, T
AU  - Asquith, W H
AU  - Thompson, D B
AU  - Cleveland, T G
AU  - Fang, X
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 136
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5075
KW  - FHWA/TX04/0-4194-3
KW  - Storms
KW  - Hyetographs
KW  - Rainfall
KW  - Precipitation (Meteorology)
KW  - Database
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Texas
KW  - Statistics
KW  - Tables (Data)
KW  - Graphs (Charts)
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Statistical analysis
KW  - Databases
KW  - Storm data
KW  - Classification
KW  - Rainfall amount
KW  - USA, Texas
KW  - Small Watersheds
KW  - Drainage Area
KW  - SW 2060:Effects on water of human nonwater activities
KW  - M2 556.12:Precipitation (556.12)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19581877?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Williams-Sether%2C+T%3BAsquith%2C+W+H%3BThompson%2C+D+B%3BCleveland%2C+T+G%3BFang%2C+X&rft.aulast=Williams-Sether&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=136&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Empirical%2C+Dimensionless%2C+Cumulative-Rainfall+Hyetographs+Developed+from+1959-86+Storm+Data+for+Selected+Small+Watersheds+in+Texas&rft.title=Empirical%2C+Dimensionless%2C+Cumulative-Rainfall+Hyetographs+Developed+from+1959-86+Storm+Data+for+Selected+Small+Watersheds+in+Texas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08/MF A02 AG: Agency FHWA/TX; Sponsored by Texas Dept. of Transportation, Austin. Research and Technology Implementation Office. and Federal Highway Administration, Austin, TX. Texas Div.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Withdrawals, Use, Discharge, and Trends in Florida, 2000
AN  - 19581724; 7293328
AB  - This report summarizes the quantities of water withdrawn, consumed, and discharged in 2000, and indicates trends in water use. Overall, the report provides a basis for estimating water budgets and projecting future water needs. Data are presented on water withdrawals in Florida for each of the following water use categories: public supply, domestic self-supplied, commercial- industrial self-supplied (including mining uses), agricultural self-supplied (including irrigation and nonirrigation uses), recreational irrigation, and power generation. Information concerning instream (nonwithdrawal) water use such as hydroelectric power generation, navigation, water-based recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and dilution and conveyance of liquid or solid waste is not included. Within each category, withdrawal data are presented by source (ground or surface water), and where sufficient data are available, seasonal and historical patterns of water use are described. Data also are presented by county and water management district for each water use category.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Marella, R L
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 146
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5151
KW  - Florida
KW  - Withdrawal
KW  - Water utilization
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Trends
KW  - Water consumption
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water management
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Domestic water
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Commercial sector
KW  - Agricultural sector
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Power generation
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - USA, Florida
KW  - Water budget
KW  - Hydrologic Budget
KW  - Hydroelectric Plants
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water Use
KW  - Solid impurities
KW  - Water Demand
KW  - Hydroelectric power
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Water use
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Irrigation Water
KW  - Fish
KW  - Mining
KW  - SW 1030:Use of water of impaired quality
KW  - Q2 09144:Regional studies, expeditions and data reports
KW  - M2 556.5:Surface Water Hydrology (556.5)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19581724?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Marella%2C+R+L&rft.aulast=Marella&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=146&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Withdrawals%2C+Use%2C+Discharge%2C+and+Trends+in+Florida%2C+2000&rft.title=Water+Withdrawals%2C+Use%2C+Discharge%2C+and+Trends+in+Florida%2C+2000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with Florida State Dept. of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Benthic Community of Offshore Sand Banks: A Literature Synopsis of the Benthic Fauna Resources in Potential Outer Continental Shelf Sand Mining Areas
AN  - 19581594; 7293218
AB  - Benthic habitat on the United States continental shelf of the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico is not a homogeneous region of flat mud habitat, but also contains natural bathymetric highs including ridge and shoal features. Many of these ridge/shoal features are sand banks which have already been identified as containing exploitable deposits. For example, it is estimated that Ship Shoal, located off of Louisiana, contains 1.6 billion cubic yards of sand appropriate for renourishment and stabilization projects. As nearshore reserves become depleted, offshore sand resources are becoming more important and proposed projects to use these sediments call for a range of a hundred thousand to several million cubic yards of sand to be taken. In 2002, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) received requests for 15 million cubic meters of sand to be used for projects off of Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. Sediments mined from offshore sources are being used to keep up with increased beach renourishment cycles, repair storm damage, prevent erosion, and prevent wetland loss due to anthropogenic alteration and sea level rise.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Brooks, R A
AU  - Sulak, K J
AU  - Bell, S S
AU  - Purdy, C N
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 348
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2005-5198
KW  - Benthos
KW  - Continental shelves
KW  - Offshore drilling
KW  - Benthic fauna
KW  - Biological communities
KW  - Shoals
KW  - Petroleum deposits
KW  - Aquatic ecosystems
KW  - Marine biology
KW  - Environmental impacts
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Mineral resources
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Food chains
KW  - Water pollution effects(Animals)
KW  - Ships
KW  - ASW, USA, Louisiana
KW  - Marine Environment
KW  - Sea level
KW  - fauna
KW  - Anthropogenic factors
KW  - ANW, USA, South Carolina
KW  - Benthic Fauna
KW  - Outer continental shelf
KW  - USA, Atlantic Coast
KW  - Storms
KW  - ANW, USA, Virginia
KW  - Habitats
KW  - mud
KW  - Potential resources
KW  - Sand
KW  - Banks
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Continental Shelf
KW  - Coasts
KW  - Sand banks
KW  - ASW, USA, Florida
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Beaches
KW  - anthropogenic factors
KW  - Benthic communities
KW  - ASW, USA, Louisiana, Ship Shoal
KW  - Habitat
KW  - Stabilizing
KW  - ANW, USA, Maryland
KW  - ASW, Mexico Gulf
KW  - Coastal zone
KW  - Erosion
KW  - ridges
KW  - Mining
KW  - Zoobenthos
KW  - Minerals
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - Q1 08422:Environmental effects
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19581594?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Brooks%2C+R+A%3BSulak%2C+K+J%3BBell%2C+S+S%3BPurdy%2C+C+N&rft.aulast=Brooks&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=348&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Benthic+Community+of+Offshore+Sand+Banks%3A+A+Literature+Synopsis+of+the+Benthic+Fauna+Resources+in+Potential+Outer+Continental+Shelf+Sand+Mining+Areas&rft.title=Benthic+Community+of+Offshore+Sand+Banks%3A+A+Literature+Synopsis+of+the+Benthic+Fauna+Resources+in+Potential+Outer+Continental+Shelf+Sand+Mining+Areas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A16/MF A03; Prepared in cooperation with University of South Florida, Tampa. Dept. of Biology.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Land- Surface Subsidence in the Northern Part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, Texas
AN  - 19580657; 7293538
AB  - As a part of the Texas Water Development Board Ground- Water Availability Modeling program, the U.S. Geological Survey developed and tested a numerical finite-difference (MODFLOW) model to simulate ground-water flow and land-surface subsidence in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system in Texas from predevelopment (before 1891) through 2000. The model is intended to be a tool that water-resource managers can use to address future ground-water-availability issues. From land surface downward, the Chicot aquifer, the Evangeline aquifer, the Burkeville confining unit, the Jasper aquifer, and the Catahoula confining unit are the hydrogeologic units of the Gulf Coast aquifer system. Withdrawals of large quantities of ground water have resulted in potentiometricsurface (head) declines in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and land-surface subsidence (primarily in the Houston area) from depressurization and compaction of clay layers interbedded in the aquifer sediments. In a generalized conceptual model of the aquifer system, water enters the ground-waterflow system in topographically high outcrops of the hydrogeologic units in the northwestern part of the approximately 25,000-square-mile model area. Water that does not discharge to streams flows to intermediate and deep zones of the system southeastward of the outcrop areas where it is discharged by wells and by upward leakage in topographically low areas near the coast. The uppermost parts of the aquifer system, which include outcrop areas, are under water-table conditions. As depth increases in the aquifer system and as interbedded sand and clay accumulate, water-table conditions evolve into confined conditions.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Kasmarek, M C
AU  - Robinson, J L
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 124
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5102
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Texas
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - USGS
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Investigations
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Gulf Coast aquifer
KW  - Chicot aquifer
KW  - Evageline aquifer
KW  - Burkeville aquifer
KW  - Catahoula aquifer
KW  - Aquifer systems
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Gulfs
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - ASW, USA, Texas
KW  - Canada, Alberta, Jasper
KW  - Numerical simulations
KW  - Aquifer Systems
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - USA, Texas, Gulf Coast Aquifer
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Aquifer flow
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - USA, Texas, Houston
KW  - Coasts
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
KW  - M2 556.34:Groundwater Flow (556.34)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19580657?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kasmarek%2C+M+C%3BRobinson%2C+J+L&rft.aulast=Kasmarek&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=124&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrogeology+and+Simulation+of+Ground-Water+Flow+and+Land-+Surface+Subsidence+in+the+Northern+Part+of+the+Gulf+Coast+Aquifer+System%2C+Texas&rft.title=Hydrogeology+and+Simulation+of+Ground-Water+Flow+and+Land-+Surface+Subsidence+in+the+Northern+Part+of+the+Gulf+Coast+Aquifer+System%2C+Texas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; Prepared in cooperation with Texas Water Development Board, Austin. and Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, Friendswood, TX.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Analysis and Mapping of Post-Fire Hydrologic Hazards for the 2002 Hayman, Coal Seam, and Missionary Ridge Wildfires, Colorado
AN  - 19580606; 7293339
AB  - Wildfires caused extreme changes in the hydrologic, hydraulic, and geomorphologic characteristics of many Colorado drainage basins in the summer of 2002. Detailed assessments were made of the short-term effects of three wildfires on burned and adjacent unburned parts of drainage basins. These were the Hayman, Coal Seam, and Missionary Ridge wildfires. Longer term runoff characteristics that reflect post-fire drainage basin recovery expected to develop over a period of several years also were analyzed for two affected stream reaches: the South Platte River between Deckers and Trumbull, and Mitchell Creek in Glenwood Springs. The 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year flood-plain boundaries and water-surface profiles were computed in a detailed hydraulic study of the Deckers-to-Trumbull reach.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Elliott, J G
AU  - Smith, ME
AU  - Friedel, MJ
AU  - Stevens, M R
AU  - Bossong, C R
AU  - Litke, D W
AU  - Parker, R S
AU  - Costello, C
AU  - Wagner, J
AU  - Char, S J
AU  - Bauer, MA
AU  - Wilds
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 114
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5300
KW  - Wildfires
KW  - Hydrologic hazards
KW  - Drainage basins
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Hydraulic characteristics
KW  - Geomorphologic characteristics
KW  - Assessments
KW  - Mapping
KW  - Hydraulics
KW  - Hydrologic analysis
KW  - Springs
KW  - Forest fires
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Catchment Areas
KW  - River basins
KW  - Coal
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Hazards
KW  - USA, Colorado
KW  - Geomorphology
KW  - USA, Colorado, South Platte R.
KW  - Boundaries
KW  - Runoff
KW  - Q2 09263:Topography and morphology
KW  - M2 556.5:Surface Water Hydrology (556.5)
KW  - SW 6050:Rock mechanics and geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19580606?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Elliott%2C+J+G%3BSmith%2C+ME%3BFriedel%2C+MJ%3BStevens%2C+M+R%3BBossong%2C+C+R%3BLitke%2C+D+W%3BParker%2C+R+S%3BCostello%2C+C%3BWagner%2C+J%3BChar%2C+S+J%3BBauer%2C+MA%3BWilds&rft.aulast=Elliott&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=114&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Analysis+and+Mapping+of+Post-Fire+Hydrologic+Hazards+for+the+2002+Hayman%2C+Coal+Seam%2C+and+Missionary+Ridge+Wildfires%2C+Colorado&rft.title=Analysis+and+Mapping+of+Post-Fire+Hydrologic+Hazards+for+the+2002+Hayman%2C+Coal+Seam%2C+and+Missionary+Ridge+Wildfires%2C+Colorado&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; Prepared in cooperation with Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Simulated Water Sources and Effects of Pumping on Surface and Ground Water, Sagamore and Monomoy Flow Lenses, Cape Code, Massachusetts
AN  - 19580588; 7293311
AB  - The sandy sediments underlying Cape Cod, Massachusetts, compose an important aquifer that is the sole source of water for a region undergoing rapid development. Population increases and urbanization on Cape Cod lead to two primary environmental effects that relate directly to water supply: (1) adverse effects of land use on the quality of water in the aquifer and (2) increases in pumping that can adversely affect environmentally sensitive surface waters, such as ponds and streams. These considerations are particularly important on the Sagamore and Monomoy flow lenses, which underlie the largest and most populous areas on Cape Cod. Numerical models of the two flow lenses were developed to simulate ground-water-flow conditions in the aquifer and to (1) delineate areas at the water table contributing water to wells and (2) estimate the effects of pumping and natural changes in recharge on surface waters.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Walter, DA
AU  - Whealan, A T
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 96
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5181
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Pumping
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Water flow
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Streams
KW  - Ponds
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Urbanization
KW  - Environmental effects
KW  - Land use
KW  - Population growth
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Cape Cod(Massachusetts)
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - USA, Massachusetts, Cape Cod
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - SW 2040:Groundwater management
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19580588?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Walter%2C+DA%3BWhealan%2C+A+T&rft.aulast=Walter&rft.aufirst=DA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=96&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulated+Water+Sources+and+Effects+of+Pumping+on+Surface+and+Ground+Water%2C+Sagamore+and+Monomoy+Flow+Lenses%2C+Cape+Code%2C+Massachusetts&rft.title=Simulated+Water+Sources+and+Effects+of+Pumping+on+Surface+and+Ground+Water%2C+Sagamore+and+Monomoy+Flow+Lenses%2C+Cape+Code%2C+Massachusetts&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection, Boston.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrologic, Soil and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central Missouri, 2001-04
AN  - 19578488; 7293816
AB  - The purpose of this report is to characterize and relate hydrologic, soil, and vegetation gradients in remnant and constructed riparian wetlands in west-central Missouri from April 2001 to March 2004. Hydrologic data were collected at the Four Rivers Conservation Area (hereafter referred to as the FRCA) primarily in the April through October growing season of each sample year and included soil moisture profiles, ground-water levels, surface pool inundation depth and duration, and river stage. Soil characteristics, including texture and organic matter, were collected and used to estimate hydraulic properties. Site elevations, evaporation, precipitation, and light availability (canopy density) also were obtained during this period. Vegetation data, including information on growth of planted trees in tree plots, natural colonization of ground flora in a converted cropland area, and the distribution of ground flora, understory, and overstory species in a mature, remnant bottomland forest area were collected between January 2001 and March 2004. The major environmental factors determining vegetation distribution in the mature bottomland hardwood forest were identified, characteristics of colonizing vegetation in a converted cropland area were documented by elevation class, and comparisons were made between the success and growth of multiple reforestation techniques.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Heimann, D C
AU  - Mettler-Cherry, P A
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 178
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5216
KW  - Gradients
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Environmental factors
KW  - Spatial distribution
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Growing season
KW  - Plant Growth
KW  - Trees
KW  - Evaporation
KW  - River stages
KW  - Flora
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Vegetation distribution
KW  - Cropland
KW  - Forest canopy
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Soil moisture profiles
KW  - USA, Missouri
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Bottomland
KW  - SW 6040:Soil mechanics
KW  - M2 556.11:Water properties (556.11)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19578488?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Heimann%2C+D+C%3BMettler-Cherry%2C+P+A&rft.aulast=Heimann&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=178&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrologic%2C+Soil+and+Vegetation+Gradients+in+Remnant+and+Constructed+Riparian+Wetlands+in+West-Central+Missouri%2C+2001-04&rft.title=Hydrologic%2C+Soil+and+Vegetation+Gradients+in+Remnant+and+Constructed+Riparian+Wetlands+in+West-Central+Missouri%2C+2001-04&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A10; Prepared in cooperation with Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Documentation of the Santa Clara Valley Regional Ground- Water/Surface-Water Flow Model, Santa Clara County, California
AN  - 19578433; 7293716
AB  - The Santa Clara Valley is a long, narrow trough extending about 35 miles southeast from the southern end of San Francisco Bay where the regional alluvial-aquifer system has been a major source of water. Intensive agricultural and urban development throughout the 20th century and related groundwater development resulted in ground-water-level declines of more than 200 feet and land subsidence of as much as 12.7 feet between the early 1900s and the mid-1960s. Since the 1960s, Santa Clara Valley Water District has imported surface water to meet growing demands and reduce dependence on groundwater supplies. This importation of water has resulted in a sustained recovery of the ground-water flow system. To help support effective management of the ground- water resources, a regional ground-water/surface-water flow model was developed. This model simulates the flow of ground water and surface water, changes in ground-water storage, and related effects such as land subsidence.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Hanson, R T
AU  - Li, Z
AU  - Faunt, C C
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 90
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5231
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Flow models
KW  - Documentation
KW  - California
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water management
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Evapotranspiration
KW  - Calibration
KW  - Simulation
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Santa Clara Valley
KW  - Santa Clara County(California)
KW  - Urban Planning
KW  - Water Districts
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Groundwater Potential
KW  - Groundwater supply
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - USA, California, Santa Clara Cty.
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - INE, USA, California, San Francisco Bay
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Resource development
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - Land subsidence
KW  - Troughs
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Modelling
KW  - SW 2060:Effects on water of human nonwater activities
KW  - Q2 09261:General
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19578433?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Hanson%2C+R+T%3BLi%2C+Z%3BFaunt%2C+C+C&rft.aulast=Hanson&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=90&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Documentation+of+the+Santa+Clara+Valley+Regional+Ground-+Water%2FSurface-Water+Flow+Model%2C+Santa+Clara+County%2C+California&rft.title=Documentation+of+the+Santa+Clara+Valley+Regional+Ground-+Water%2FSurface-Water+Flow+Model%2C+Santa+Clara+County%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Nevada, Water Year 2005
AN  - 19578028; 7294968
AB  - This report for Nevada is one of a series of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey's surface-water and ground-water data-collection networks in each State, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territories. These records of streams, canals, drains and springs, lakes and reservoirs, and observation wells provide the hydrologic information needed by Federal, State, and local agencies and the private sector for developing and managing our Nation's land and water resources. This report is the culmination of a concerted effort by personnel of the U.S. Geological Survey who collected, analyzed, verified, and organized the data and who typed, edited, and assembled the report. The Nevada Data Management Unit had primary responsibility for assuring that the information contained herein is accurate, complete, and adheres to Geological Survey policy and established guidelines.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Bonner, L J
AU  - Evetts, D M
AU  - Swartwood, J R
AU  - Wilson, J W
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 690
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-NV-04-1
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Stage discharge relations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Rivers
KW  - River basins
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Springs
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Data reports
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - USA, Nevada
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Drains
KW  - ASW, Greater Antilles, Puerto Rico
KW  - Annual reports
KW  - Canals
KW  - Water management
KW  - Standards
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19578028?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bonner%2C+L+J%3BEvetts%2C+D+M%3BSwartwood%2C+J+R%3BWilson%2C+J+W&rft.aulast=Bonner&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=690&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Nevada%2C+Water+Year+2005&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Nevada%2C+Water+Year+2005&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A99/MF A06
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Effects of Surface Applications of Biosolids on Soil, Crops, Ground Water, and Streambed Sediment Near Deer Trail, Colorado, 1999-2003
AN  - 19577935; 7293733
AB  - The purpose of this report is to present interpretive information about biosolids, soil, crops, ground water (alluvial and bedrock), and streambed sediment from the expanded monitoring program near Deer Trail for 1999 through 2003. This report presents interpretations for all monitoring components of the program. The Ground-Water section includes a discussion of hydrology and water quality. This report does not include the hydrogeologic structure maps that were done as part of the bedrock ground-water monitoring component of the program. The structure maps were used to select bedrock-aquifer monitoring locations for the expanded monitoring program. The structure maps, along with a more detailed discussion of the hydrogeology of the region, are included in another interpretive USGS report (Yager and Arnold, 2003). This report is organized by monitoring component because each component (such as soil or ground water) was monitored as a separate study. For each monitoring component, component-specific objectives, approach, and interpretive discussions are included. The interpretive discussions for soil, crop, ground-water, and streambed-sediment components consider geochemical effects as well as effects of biosolids applications on that component.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Yager, TJB
AU  - Smith, D B
AU  - Crock, J G
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 102
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5289
KW  - Biosolids
KW  - Soils
KW  - Crops
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Streambed sediments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Deer Trail(Colorado)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Pollution monitoring
KW  - Land Disposal
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Maps
KW  - Streams
KW  - Soil
KW  - Bedrock
KW  - deer
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Streambeds
KW  - Geochemistry
KW  - Sludge Disposal
KW  - USA, Colorado
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - SW 3050:Ultimate disposal of wastes
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577935?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Yager%2C+TJB%3BSmith%2C+D+B%3BCrock%2C+J+G&rft.aulast=Yager&rft.aufirst=TJB&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=102&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Effects+of+Surface+Applications+of+Biosolids+on+Soil%2C+Crops%2C+Ground+Water%2C+and+Streambed+Sediment+Near+Deer+Trail%2C+Colorado%2C+1999-2003&rft.title=Effects+of+Surface+Applications+of+Biosolids+on+Soil%2C+Crops%2C+Ground+Water%2C+and+Streambed+Sediment+Near+Deer+Trail%2C+Colorado%2C+1999-2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; Prepared in cooperation with Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver, CO.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Geologic, Water-Chemistry, and Hydrologic Data from Multiple- Well Monitoring Sites and Selected Water-Supply Wells in the Santa Clara Valley, California, 1999-2003
AN  - 19577914; 7293718
AB  - The purpose of this report is to present a compilation and summary of all data collected at eight new multiple-well monitoring sites along with related tests and measurements in the Santa Clara Valley completed between 2000 and 2003 and water- chemistry data collected between 1999 and 2003. To better identify the three-dimensional geohydrologic framework of the Santa Clara Valley and improve the groundwater management strategy, gaps in the ground-water monitoring network were identified previously (Jaimes, 1998). Included in the current report are lithologic and geologic data, geophysical data, water-chemistry data, and hydrologic data. In addition to summarizing data collection, this report presents initial interpretations and estimates from these data. The geologic interpretations include thicknesses, Holocene and bedrock depths, specific storage, and core attributes. The water-chemistry interpretations include age dates and estimates of percentages of artificial recharge.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Newhouse, M W
AU  - Hanson, R T
AU  - Wentworth, C M
AU  - Everett, R R
AU  - Williams, C F
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 148
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5250
KW  - Geologic data
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - California
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Lithology
KW  - Hydraulic conductivity
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Nitrogen
KW  - Carbon
KW  - Ions
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Santa Clara Valley(California)
KW  - Sites
KW  - Groundwater management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Cores
KW  - Networks
KW  - USA, California
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Bedrock
KW  - Data Collections
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577914?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Newhouse%2C+M+W%3BHanson%2C+R+T%3BWentworth%2C+C+M%3BEverett%2C+R+R%3BWilliams%2C+C+F&rft.aulast=Newhouse&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=148&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Geologic%2C+Water-Chemistry%2C+and+Hydrologic+Data+from+Multiple-+Well+Monitoring+Sites+and+Selected+Water-Supply+Wells+in+the+Santa+Clara+Valley%2C+California%2C+1999-2003&rft.title=Geologic%2C+Water-Chemistry%2C+and+Hydrologic+Data+from+Multiple-+Well+Monitoring+Sites+and+Selected+Water-Supply+Wells+in+the+Santa+Clara+Valley%2C+California%2C+1999-2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources of Sweetwater County, Wyoming
AN  - 19577678; 7293758
AB  - Sweetwater County is located in the southwestern part of Wyoming and is the largest county in the state. A study to quantify the availability and describe the chemical quality of surface-water and ground-water resources in Sweetwater County was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Wyoming State Engineer's Office. Most of the county has an arid climate. For this reason a large amount of the flow in perennial streams within the county is derived from outside the county. Likewise, much of the ground-water recharge to aquifers within the county is from flows into the county, and occurs slowly. Surface- water data were not collected as part of the study. Evaluations of streamflow and stream-water quality were limited to analyses of historical data and descriptions of previous investigations. Forty- six new ground-water-quality samples were collected as part of the study and the results from an additional 782 historical ground- water-quality samples were reviewed. Available hydrogeologic characteristics for various aquifers throughout the county also are described.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Mason, J P
AU  - Miller, KA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 204
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5214
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Streams
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Recharge
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Evaluation
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Sweetwater County(Wyoming)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Historical account
KW  - Arid environments
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Arid Climates
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Arid climates
KW  - Aquifer flow
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - USA, Wyoming
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Climate
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Perennial Streams
KW  - Aquifer recharge
KW  - Reviews
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Recharge
KW  - Q2 09127:General papers on resources
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 6050:Rock mechanics and geology
KW  - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577678?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Mason%2C+J+P%3BMiller%2C+KA&rft.aulast=Mason&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=204&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+of+Sweetwater+County%2C+Wyoming&rft.title=Water+Resources+of+Sweetwater+County%2C+Wyoming&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A11; Prepared in cooperation with Wyoming State Engineers Office, Cheyenne.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water-Quality Assessment of the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana and Wyoming-Water Quality of Fixed Sites, 1999-2001
AN  - 19577454; 7293329
AB  - The National Water-Quality Assessment Program of the U.S. Geological Survey initiated an assessment in 1997 of the quality of water resources in the Yellowstone River Basin. Water-quality samples regularly were collected during 1999-2001 at 10 fixed sites on streams representing the major environmental settings of the basin. Integrator sites, which are heterogeneous in land use and geology, were established on the mainstem of the Yellowstone River (4 sites) and on three major tributariesClarks Fork Yellowstone River (1 site), the Bighorn River (1 site), and the Powder River (1 site). Indicator sites, which are more homogeneous in land use and geology than the integrator sites, were located on minor tributaries with important environmental settingsSoda Butte Creek in a mineral resource area (1 site), the Tongue River in a forested area (1 site), and the Little Powder River in a rangeland area (1 site). Water-quality sampling frequency generally was at least monthly and included field measurements and laboratory analyses of fecal-indicator bacteria, major ions, dissolved solids, nutrients, trace elements, pesticides, and suspended sediment.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Miller, KA
AU  - Clark, M L
AU  - Wright, PR
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 100
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5113
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Montana
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Land cover
KW  - Physiography
KW  - Climate
KW  - Geology
KW  - Stratigraphy
KW  - Seismicity
KW  - Coal
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Mineral deposits
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Habitats
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Land Use
KW  - water quality
KW  - River Basins
KW  - Resource management
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Basins
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - mineral resources
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Resuspended sediments
KW  - USA, Montana, Yellowstone R.
KW  - Assessments
KW  - USA, Montana, Powder R.
KW  - Dissolved solids
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Tributaries
KW  - USA, Montana
KW  - Mineral resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Bacteria
KW  - Ions
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - USA, California, Butte Creek
KW  - River basins
KW  - Land use
KW  - Rangelands
KW  - buttes
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Geological surveys
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3030:Effects of pollution
KW  - Q5 08505:Prevention and control
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577454?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Miller%2C+KA%3BClark%2C+M+L%3BWright%2C+PR&rft.aulast=Miller&rft.aufirst=KA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=100&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water-Quality+Assessment+of+the+Yellowstone+River+Basin%2C+Montana+and+Wyoming-Water+Quality+of+Fixed+Sites%2C+1999-2001&rft.title=Water-Quality+Assessment+of+the+Yellowstone+River+Basin%2C+Montana+and+Wyoming-Water+Quality+of+Fixed+Sites%2C+1999-2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Trends in Streamflow Characteristics at Long-Term Gaging Stations, Hawaii
AN  - 19577429; 7293312
AB  - The overall objective of this study is to obtain a better understanding of long-term trends and variations in stream-flow on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Oahu, and Kauai, where long- term stream-gaging stations exist. This study includes (1) an analysis of long-term trends in flows (both total flow and estimated base flow) at 16 stream-gaging stations, (2) a description of patterns in trends within the State, and (3) discussion of possible regional factors (including rainfall) that are related to the observed trends and variations.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Oki, D S
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 128
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5080
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Trends
KW  - Seasonal variations
KW  - Statistical analysis
KW  - Rainfall
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Base flow
KW  - Base Flow
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - USA, Hawaii, Oahu I.
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - M2 556.53:Rivers, Streams, Canals (556.53)
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
KW  - Q2 09261:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577429?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Oki%2C+D+S&rft.aulast=Oki&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=128&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Trends+in+Streamflow+Characteristics+at+Long-Term+Gaging+Stations%2C+Hawaii&rft.title=Trends+in+Streamflow+Characteristics+at+Long-Term+Gaging+Stations%2C+Hawaii&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with County of Maui Dept. of Water Supply, HI. and Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Statistical Summaries of Streamflow in Montana and Adjacent Areas, Water Years 1900 through 2002
AN  - 19577070; 7293761
AB  - In response to the need to have more current information about streamflow characteristics in Montana, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and Bureau of Land Management, conducted a study to analyze streamflow data. Updated statistical summaries of streamflow characteristics are presented for 286 streamflow-gaging sites in Montana and adjacent areas having 10 or more years of record for water years 1900 through 2002. Data include the magnitude and probability of annual low and high flow, the magnitude and probability of low flow for three seasons (March-June, July-October, and November-February), flow duration of the daily mean discharge, and the monthly and annual mean discharges. For streamflow-gaging stations where 20 percent or more of the contributing drainage basin is affected by dams or other large-scale human modification, streamflow is considered regulated. Separate streamflow characteristics are presented for the unregulated and regulated periods of record for sites with sufficient data.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - McCarthy, P M
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 330
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5266
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Data analysis
KW  - Statistical data
KW  - Montana
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Low flow
KW  - High flow
KW  - Discharge
KW  - Magnitude
KW  - Probability
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land management
KW  - Environmental Quality
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Statistical analysis
KW  - River discharge
KW  - River basins
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Dam control
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flow Duration
KW  - High Flow
KW  - Geological surveys
KW  - Environmental quality
KW  - Seasonal variability
KW  - Streamflow data
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - M2 556.53:Rivers, Streams, Canals (556.53)
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
KW  - Q2 09261:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McCarthy%2C+P+M&rft.aulast=McCarthy&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=330&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Statistical+Summaries+of+Streamflow+in+Montana+and+Adjacent+Areas%2C+Water+Years+1900+through+2002&rft.title=Statistical+Summaries+of+Streamflow+in+Montana+and+Adjacent+Areas%2C+Water+Years+1900+through+2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A16; Prepared in cooperation with Montana Environmental Quality Council, Helena., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Pablo, MT. and Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Evaluation of Water- Management Alternatives in the Assabet River Basin, Eastern Massachusetts
AN  - 19577003; 7293728
AB  - This report describes current water-resource conditions in the Assabet River Basin, the development, calibration, and limitations of numerical ground-water-flow models for the basin, and simulations made with the models to evaluate the effects of water withdrawals and discharges on streamflows. It also presents the data collected to define water resources in the basin, and upon which the steady-state and transient models were developed. The models include average water withdrawals and discharges for a 5- year period, 1997-2001, which was near long-term average hydrologic conditions. Simulation results of several scenarios of altered withdrawals, discharges, or other water-management practices also are described. Finally, the report describes the use of optimization techniques to investigate the potential for reduced streamflow depletion through altered water-management practices in the upper part of the basin.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - DeSimone, LA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 150
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5114
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water resources
KW  - River basins
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Water management
KW  - Water flow
KW  - Computerized simulation
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Flow models
KW  - Geology
KW  - Hydraulic properties
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Ponds
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Calibration
KW  - Assabet River Basin(Massachusetts)
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - River Basins
KW  - USA, Massachusetts
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Streamflow Depletion
KW  - Evaluation
KW  - Hydrologic Models
KW  - Calibrations
KW  - Numerical simulations
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - Optimization
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19577003?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=DeSimone%2C+LA&rft.aulast=DeSimone&rft.aufirst=LA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=150&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulation+of+Ground-Water+Flow+and+Evaluation+of+Water-+Management+Alternatives+in+the+Assabet+River+Basin%2C+Eastern+Massachusetts&rft.title=Simulation+of+Ground-Water+Flow+and+Evaluation+of+Water-+Management+Alternatives+in+the+Assabet+River+Basin%2C+Eastern+Massachusetts&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrologic and Geochemical Evaluation of Aquifer Storage Recovery in the Santee Limestone/Black Mingo Aquifer, Charleston, South Carolina, 1998-2002
AN  - 19576989; 7293818
AB  - The hydrologic and geochemical effects of aquifer storage recovery were evaluated to determine the potential for supplying the city of Charleston, South Carolina, with large quantities of potable water during emergencies, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or hard freezes. An aquifer storage recovery system, including a production well and three observation wells, was installed at a site located on the Charleston peninsula. The focus of this study was the 23.2-meter thick Tertiary-age carbonate and sand aquifer of the Santee Limestone and the Black Mingo Group, the northernmost equivalent of the Floridan aquifer system.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Petkewich, MD
AU  - Parkhurst, D L
AU  - Conlon, K J
AU  - Campbell, B G
AU  - Mirecki, JE
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 96
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5046
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Geochemistry
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Evaluation
KW  - South Carolina
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Carbonates
KW  - Potable water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Stratigraphy
KW  - Aquifer storage recovery
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Limestone
KW  - Potable Water
KW  - Aquifer systems
KW  - Aquifer storage
KW  - Storage
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - USA, South Carolina, Charleston
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576989?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Petkewich%2C+MD%3BParkhurst%2C+D+L%3BConlon%2C+K+J%3BCampbell%2C+B+G%3BMirecki%2C+JE&rft.aulast=Petkewich&rft.aufirst=MD&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=96&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrologic+and+Geochemical+Evaluation+of+Aquifer+Storage+Recovery+in+the+Santee+Limestone%2FBlack+Mingo+Aquifer%2C+Charleston%2C+South+Carolina%2C+1998-2002&rft.title=Hydrologic+and+Geochemical+Evaluation+of+Aquifer+Storage+Recovery+in+the+Santee+Limestone%2FBlack+Mingo+Aquifer%2C+Charleston%2C+South+Carolina%2C+1998-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with Denali National Park and Preserve, AK.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Surface-Water/Ground-Water Interaction Along Reaches of the Snake River and Henrys Fork, Idaho
AN  - 19576947; 7293736
AB  - Declining water levels in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer and decreases in spring discharges from the aquifer to the Snake River have spurred studies to improve understanding of the surface-water/ground-water interaction on the plain. This study was done to estimate streamflow gains and losses along specific reaches of the Snake River and Henrys Fork and to compare changes in gain and loss estimates to changes in ground-water levels over time. Data collected during this study will be used to enhance the conceptual model of the hydrologic system and to refine computer models of ground-water flow and surface-water/ground-water interactions. Estimates of streamflow gains and losses along specific subreaches of the Snake River and Henrys Fork, based on the results of five seepage studies completed during 2001-02, varied greatly across the study area, ranging from a loss estimate of 606 cu ft/s in a subreach of the upper Snake River near Heise to a gain estimate of 3,450 cu ft/s in a subreach of the Snake River that includes Thousand Springs. Some variations over time also were apparent in specific subreaches. Surface spring flow accounted for much of the inflow to subreaches having large gain estimates. Several subreaches alternately gained and lost streamflow during the study. Changes in estimates of streamflow gains and losses along some of the subreaches were compared with changes in water levels, measured at three different times during 2001-02, in adjacent wells. In some instances, a strong relation between changes in estimates of gains or losses and changes in ground-water levels was apparent.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Hortness, JE
AU  - Vidmar, P
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 144
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5115
KW  - Henrys Fork
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Discharges
KW  - Computer models
KW  - Water level
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Investigation
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - USA, Snake R.
KW  - Springs
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - USA, Idaho, Snake R., Henrys Fork
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - USA, Idaho, Sawtooth Valley, Snake R.
KW  - Water levels
KW  - USA, Idaho
KW  - Hydrologic Models
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Seepages
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576947?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Hortness%2C+JE%3BVidmar%2C+P&rft.aulast=Hortness&rft.aufirst=JE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=144&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Surface-Water%2FGround-Water+Interaction+Along+Reaches+of+the+Snake+River+and+Henrys+Fork%2C+Idaho&rft.title=Surface-Water%2FGround-Water+Interaction+Along+Reaches+of+the+Snake+River+and+Henrys+Fork%2C+Idaho&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Boise.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Florida, Water Year 2003. Volume 3A. Southwest Florida Surface Water
AN  - 19576946; 7294957
AB  - Water resources data for the 2003 water year in Florida consist of continuous or daily discharges for 385 streams, periodic discharge for 13 streams, continuous daily stage for 255 streams, periodic stage for 13 streams, peak stage for 36 streams and peak discharge for 36 streams, continuous or daily elevations for 13 lakes, periodic elevations for 46 lakes; continuous ground- water levels for 441 wells, periodic ground-water levels for 1,227 wells, and quality-of-water data for 133 surface-water sites and 308 wells. The data for Southwest Florida include records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage, contents, water quality of lakes and reservoirs, and water levels and water quality of ground-water wells. Volume 3A contains continuous or daily discharge for 103 streams, periodic discharge for 7 streams, continuous or daily stage for 67 streams, periodic stage for 13 streams, peak stage and discharge for 8 streams, continuous or daily elevations for 2 lakes, periodic elevations for 26 lakes, and quality-of-water data for 62 surface-water sites. These data represent the national Water Data System records collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating local, state, and federal agencies in Florida.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Kane, R L
AU  - Fletcher, W L
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 660
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-FL-03-3A
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Florida
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rate
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water temperatures
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Water analysis
KW  - Elevations
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - USA, Florida
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Stages
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - water levels
KW  - Wells
KW  - Elevation
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576946?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kane%2C+R+L%3BFletcher%2C+W+L&rft.aulast=Kane&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=660&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Florida%2C+Water+Year+2003.+Volume+3A.+Southwest+Florida+Surface+Water&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Florida%2C+Water+Year+2003.+Volume+3A.+Southwest+Florida+Surface+Water&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A99
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Precipitation-Runoff Processes in the Feather River Basin, Northeastern California, with Prospects for Streamflow Predictability, Water Years 1971-97
AN  - 19576905; 7293714
AB  - This report documents the distributed-parameter, physically based, Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS; Leavesley and others, 1983) constructed for the Feather River Basin. The Feather River PRMS is composed of eight models representing eight drainages of the basin. Together, these models simulate streamflow from 98 percent of the basin above Lake Oroville. This report characterizes the Feather River watershed precipitation, temperature, snowpack evolution, and water and energy balances that determine streamflow rates from, and within, the basin above Lake Oroville. It further documents the new models developed to assess the (physically based) predictability of seasonal inflows to Lake Oroville.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Koczot, K M
AU  - Jeton, A E
AU  - McGurk, B J
AU  - Dettinger, MD
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 98
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5202
KW  - Precipitation(Meteorology)
KW  - Runoff
KW  - River basins
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Water management
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Seasonal variations
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Hydrologic models
KW  - Land use
KW  - Spatial resolution
KW  - Aquatic habitats
KW  - California
KW  - Feather River Basin(California)
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Snowpack
KW  - River Basins
KW  - Precipitation-runoff modeling
KW  - Rainfall-runoff Relationships
KW  - USA, California, Feather R.
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Snow cover
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Feathers
KW  - Predictability
KW  - USA, California
KW  - Lake Basins
KW  - SW 0850:Lakes
KW  - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16)
KW  - Q2 09261:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576905?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Koczot%2C+K+M%3BJeton%2C+A+E%3BMcGurk%2C+B+J%3BDettinger%2C+MD&rft.aulast=Koczot&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=98&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Precipitation-Runoff+Processes+in+the+Feather+River+Basin%2C+Northeastern+California%2C+with+Prospects+for+Streamflow+Predictability%2C+Water+Years+1971-97&rft.title=Precipitation-Runoff+Processes+in+the+Feather+River+Basin%2C+Northeastern+California%2C+with+Prospects+for+Streamflow+Predictability%2C+Water+Years+1971-97&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A06; Prepared in cooperation with California State Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Conceptualization and Simulation of the Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio Region, Texas
AN  - 19576721; 7293731
AB  - A new numerical ground-water-flow model (Edwards aquifer model) that incorporates important components of the latest information and plausible conceptualization of the Edwards aquifer was developed. The model includes both the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer in the San Antonio region, Texas, and was calibrated for steady-state (193946) and transient (19472000) conditions, excluding Travis County. Transient simulations were conducted using monthly recharge and pumpage (withdrawal) data. The model incorporates conduits simulated as continuously connected (other than being separated in eastern Uvalde and southwestern Medina Counties), one-cell-wide (1,320 feet) zones with very large hydraulic-conductivity values (as much as 300,000 feet per day). The locations of the conduits were based on a number of factors, including major potentiometric surface troughs in the aquifer, the presence of sinking streams, geochemical information, and geologic structures (for example, faults and grabens).
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Lindgren, R J
AU  - Dutton, A R
AU  - Hovorka, S D
AU  - Worthington, SRH
AU  - Painter, S
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 166
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5277
KW  - Texas
KW  - Conceptulaization
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - Ground water recharge
KW  - Computerized sumulation
KW  - Geologic features
KW  - Pumpage
KW  - Edwards aquifer
KW  - Barton springs
KW  - San Antonio(Texas)
KW  - Chile, Atacama, San Antonio
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Geologic Fractures
KW  - Springs
KW  - Aquifer models
KW  - Streams
KW  - USA, Texas, Edwards Aquifer
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - Numerical simulations
KW  - Conduits
KW  - USA, Texas
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - Troughs
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
KW  - M2 556.36:Springs (556.36)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576721?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lindgren%2C+R+J%3BDutton%2C+A+R%3BHovorka%2C+S+D%3BWorthington%2C+SRH%3BPainter%2C+S&rft.aulast=Lindgren&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=166&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Conceptualization+and+Simulation+of+the+Edwards+Aquifer%2C+San+Antonio+Region%2C+Texas&rft.title=Conceptualization+and+Simulation+of+the+Edwards+Aquifer%2C+San+Antonio+Region%2C+Texas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A09; Prepared in cooperation with Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Effects of Alternative Instream-Flow Criteria and Water-Supply Demands on Ground-Water Development Options in the Big River Area, Rhode Island
AN  - 19576639; 7293740
AB  - Transient numerical ground-water-flow simulation and optimization techniques were used to evaluate potential effects of instream-flow criteria and water-supply demands on groundwater development options and resultant streamflow depletions in the Big River Area, Rhode Island. The 35.7 square-mile (sq mi) study area includes three river basins, the Big River Basin (30.9 mi2), the Carr River Basin (which drains to the Big River Basin and is 7.33 mi2 in area), the Mishnock River Basin (3.32 sq mi), and a small area that drains directly to the Flat River Reservoir. The overall objective of the simulations was to determine the amount of ground water that could be withdrawn from the three basins when constrained by streamflow requirements at four locations in the study area and by maximum rates of withdrawal at 13 existing and hypothetical well sites. The instream-flow requirement for the outlet of each basin and the outfall of Lake Mishnock were the primary variables that limited the amount of ground water that could be withdrawn. A requirement to meet seasonal ground-water- demand patterns also limits the amount of ground water that could be withdrawn by up to about 50 percent of the total withdrawals without the demand-pattern constraint. Minimum water-supply demands from a public water supplier in the Mishnock River Basin, however, did not have a substantial effect on withdrawals in the Big River Basin. Hypothetical dry-period instream-flow requirements and the effects of artificial recharge also affected the amount of ground water that could be withdrawn.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Granato, GE
AU  - Barlow, P M
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 124
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5301
KW  - Ground water flow
KW  - Computerized simulation
KW  - Rhode Island
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Depletion
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Big River
KW  - Mishnock River
KW  - Carr River
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - Rivers
KW  - River Basins
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Groundwater Basins
KW  - River basins
KW  - Public Waters
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - New Zealand, South I., Kahurangi Natl. Park, Big R.
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Outfalls
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Drains
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - SW 2040:Groundwater management
KW  - Q2 09261:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576639?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Granato%2C+GE%3BBarlow%2C+P+M&rft.aulast=Granato&rft.aufirst=GE&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=124&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Effects+of+Alternative+Instream-Flow+Criteria+and+Water-Supply+Demands+on+Ground-Water+Development+Options+in+the+Big+River+Area%2C+Rhode+Island&rft.title=Effects+of+Alternative+Instream-Flow+Criteria+and+Water-Supply+Demands+on+Ground-Water+Development+Options+in+the+Big+River+Area%2C+Rhode+Island&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; Prepared in cooperation with Rhode Island Water Resources Board, Providence.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Illinois, Water Year 2003 (on CD-ROM)
AN  - 19576362; 7294953
AB  - This compact disc (CD) contains current (2003) and historical hydrologic data for Illinois. Data include records of discharge, stage, water quality and biology of streams; stage of lakes and reservoirs; levels and quality of ground water; and records of precipitation, air temperature, dew point, solar radiation, and wind speed. Data were collected and compiled as a part of the National Water Information System (NWIS) maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/IL-03-CD
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Stage discharge relations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Lake Michigan
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Rivers
KW  - River basins
KW  - Illinois River
KW  - Ohio River
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - CD-ROM
KW  - National Water Information System(NWIS)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Historical account
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - air temperature
KW  - Dew point
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Air quality
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - dew point
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Solar radiation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Air temperature
KW  - Wind speed
KW  - Cadmium
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Wind
KW  - Data processing
KW  - USA, Illinois
KW  - Computers
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Velocity
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Data Processing
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Information systems
KW  - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576362?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Illinois%2C+Water+Year+2003+%28on+CD-ROM%29&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Illinois%2C+Water+Year+2003+%28on+CD-ROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Available in two formats: HTML files and tabular files. An HTML file is a text file that can be read by a Web browser. A tabular file is a text file consisting of tabular data that can be transferred into common software packages for data processing and analysis. NTIS Prices: CD-ROM CP D01; See also PB2003-500093, PB2002-500112, PB2003-500051, and PB2000-500085. Minimum Requirements: World Wide Web browsing software and CD-ROM drive with ISO 9660 software driver. Web browsing software is not provided. Data can be viewed, copied, or printed from most Web browsing software packages.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Minnesota, Water Year 2003
AN  - 19576289; 7294955
AB  - Water resources data for the 2003 water year for Minnesota consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage of lakes and reservoirs; ground-water quality; and water quality in wells. This report contains discharge records for 109 stream-gaging stations; stage for 12 lakes and reservoirs; water quality for 4 stream-gaging stations; peak flow data for 90 highflow partial-record stations, and water levels for 3 groundwater observation wells. Additional water data were collected at various sites that are not part of the systematic data collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey for cooperating State and Federal agencies in Minnesota.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Mitton, G B
AU  - Guttormson, K G
AU  - Stratton, G W
AU  - Wakeman, E S
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 368
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/MN-03-1
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Streams
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Data collection
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Data reports
KW  - Gauges
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Reservoir water quality
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Data collections
KW  - USA, Minnesota
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576289?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Mitton%2C+G+B%3BGuttormson%2C+K+G%3BStratton%2C+G+W%3BWakeman%2C+E+S&rft.aulast=Mitton&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=368&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Minnesota%2C+Water+Year+2003&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Minnesota%2C+Water+Year+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A17/MF A03; See also PB2003-104598.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data Alaska, Water Year 2003
AN  - 19576039; 7294951
AB  - This product is the Water Resources Data for the 2003 water year for Alaska and consists of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stages of lakes; and water levels and water quality of ground water. This volume contains records for water discharge at 118 gaging stations; stage or contents only at 4 gaging stations; water quality at 28 gaging stations; and water levels for 53 observation wells. Also included are data for 66 crest-stage partial-record stations. Additional water data were collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data- collection program and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. Some data collected during 2003 will be published in subsequent reports. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alaska.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Meyer, D F
AU  - Bartu, D P
AU  - Eash, J D
AU  - Swenson, WA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 480
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/AK-03-1
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Sampling sites
KW  - Water levels
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Stages
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Observation Wells
KW  - Discharge Measurement
KW  - USA, Alaska
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - water levels
KW  - Water wells
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19576039?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Meyer%2C+D+F%3BBartu%2C+D+P%3BEash%2C+J+D%3BSwenson%2C+WA&rft.aulast=Meyer&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=480&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+Alaska%2C+Water+Year+2003&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+Alaska%2C+Water+Year+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Also available on CD-ROM. Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605- 6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A22/MF A04; Supersedes PB2005-102899.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Illinois, Water Year 2004 (includes Historical Data) (on CD-ROM)
AN  - 19575913; 7294954
AB  - This annual Water-Data Report for Illinois contains current water year (Oct. 1, 2003, to Sept. 30, 2004) and historical data of discharge, stage, water quality and biology of streams; stage of lakes and reservoirs; levels and quality of ground water; and records of precipitation, air temperature, dew point, solar radiation, and wind speed. The current year's (2004) data provided in this report include (1) discharge for 177 surface-water gaging stations and for 10 crest-stage partial-record stations; (2) stage for 27 surface-water gaging stations; (3) stage for 8 reservoirs; (4) water-quality records for 7 surface-water stations; (5) sediment-discharge records for 16 surface-water stations; (6) water-level records for 14 ground-water wells; (7) precipitation records for 50 rain gages; (8) records of air temperature, dew point, solar radiation and wind speed for 1 meteorological station; and (9) biological records for 6 sample sites. Also included are miscellaneous data collected at various sites not in the systematic data-collection network. Data were collected and compiled as a part of the National Water Information System (NWIS) maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies. All data published in previous years' CDs are copied into the current year's CD. Therefore, the most recent CD supersedes previous CDs.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/IL-04-CD
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Stage discharge relations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Lake Michigan
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Rivers
KW  - River basins
KW  - Illinois River
KW  - Ohio River
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - CD-ROM
KW  - National Water Information System(NWIS)
KW  - Historical account
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Dew point
KW  - Gaging Stations
KW  - Rainfall
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Stages
KW  - dew point
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Wind speed
KW  - rain gages
KW  - Cadmium
KW  - Groundwater Data
KW  - Wind
KW  - Solar Radiation
KW  - USA, Illinois
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Information systems
KW  - Meteorological stations
KW  - air temperature
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Air quality
KW  - Solar radiation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Air temperature
KW  - Dew
KW  - Rain gages
KW  - Meteorology
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Data processing
KW  - Air Temperature
KW  - Computers
KW  - Velocity
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - browsing
KW  - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19575913?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Illinois%2C+Water+Year+2004+%28includes+Historical+Data%29+%28on+CD-ROM%29&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Illinois%2C+Water+Year+2004+%28includes+Historical+Data%29+%28on+CD-ROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Data can be viewed, copied, or printed from most Web browsing software packages and are available in two formats: HTML files and tabular files. An HTML file is a text file that can be read by a Web browser. A tabular file is a text file consisting of tabular data that can be transferred into common software packages for data processing and analysis. NTIS Prices: CD-ROM CP D01; Supersedes PB2005-500020, PB2003-500093, PB2002-500112, PB2003- 500051, and PB2000-500085. Minimum Requirements: World Wide Web browsing software and CD-ROM drive with ISO 9660 software driver. Web browsing software is not provided.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Design and Analysis of a Natural-Gradient Ground-Water Tracer Test in a Freshwater Tidal Wetland, West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
AN  - 19575785; 7293713
AB  - This report describes the design and analysis of a small-scale natural-gradient tracer test that was conducted in an area of wetland sediments at West Branch Canal Creek. The tracer test was designed to monitor tracer movement in three dimensions within the upper peat unit of the wetland sediments over a period of approximately 1 year. Design and construction details for the 1/4- inch inverted-screen piezometers used for the tracer test, methods used for piezometer installation, and the arrangement of these piezometers within the tracer array are described. The techniques used to prepare and inject the tracers are discussed, and the methods used to collect and analyze samples from the tracer array are also presented.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Olsen, L D
AU  - Tenbus, F J
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 130
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5190
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Tracer techniques
KW  - Design analysis
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Geology
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Velocity
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Bromide
KW  - Sulfur hexafluoride
KW  - Testing
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - Maryland
KW  - Aberdeen Proving Ground(Maryland)
KW  - Testing Procedures
KW  - Streams
KW  - Tracers
KW  - USA, Maryland, Aberdeen Proving Ground
KW  - Tidal analysis
KW  - Piezometers
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Materials Testing
KW  - USA, Maryland
KW  - SW 6050:Rock mechanics and geology
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19575785?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Olsen%2C+L+D%3BTenbus%2C+F+J&rft.aulast=Olsen&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=130&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Design+and+Analysis+of+a+Natural-Gradient+Ground-Water+Tracer+Test+in+a+Freshwater+Tidal+Wetland%2C+West+Branch+Canal+Creek%2C+Aberdeen+Proving+Ground%2C+Maryland&rft.title=Design+and+Analysis+of+a+Natural-Gradient+Ground-Water+Tracer+Test+in+a+Freshwater+Tidal+Wetland%2C+West+Branch+Canal+Creek%2C+Aberdeen+Proving+Ground%2C+Maryland&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Environmental Conservation and Restoration Div.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Erosion and Deposition of Sediment at Channel Cross Sections on Powder River Between Moorhead and Broadus, Montana, 1980-98
AN  - 19575296; 7290801
AB  - Erosion and deposition of sediment and some characteristics of these sediments were measured along a 95-kilometer study reach of Powder River between Moorhead and Broadus, Montana from 1988 to 1998. Suspended-sediment samples were collected at two gaging stations (Moorhead and Broadus, Montana). Sediment samples were also collected from the flood plain and channel within the study reach. Bed elevations were measured each year after the peak runoff at 21 cross sections and for different time intervals at an additional 12 cross sections. The proportions of sand (particle diameters greater than or equal to 0.63 millimeters) and silt and clay (less than 0.063 millimeters) in the suspended sediment depended upon the type of flood. Ice break-up floods in February and March carried 28 percent sand, snowmelt floods in May and June carried 23 percent sand, and flash floods during the summer carried 7 percent sand. The proportion of sand in the deposited sediment depended upon the distance of the sample from the channel.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Moody, JA
AU  - Meade, R H
AU  - Martinson, HA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 324
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-02-4219
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Channels
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Deposition
KW  - Suspended sediment
KW  - Deposited sediment
KW  - Cross sections
KW  - Survey methods
KW  - Channel changes
KW  - Powder River
KW  - Moorhead(Montana)
KW  - Broadus(Montana)
KW  - Cross-section data
KW  - Sand particles
KW  - Flash floods
KW  - Cross-sections
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Resuspended sediments
KW  - Sand
KW  - Floods
KW  - USA, Montana, Powder R.
KW  - Sediment transport
KW  - Sedimentation
KW  - USA, Montana
KW  - Suspended Sediments
KW  - Snowmelt floods
KW  - Silt
KW  - Flood plains
KW  - Runoff
KW  - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
KW  - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19575296?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Moody%2C+JA%3BMeade%2C+R+H%3BMartinson%2C+HA&rft.aulast=Moody&rft.aufirst=JA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=324&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Erosion+and+Deposition+of+Sediment+at+Channel+Cross+Sections+on+Powder+River+Between+Moorhead+and+Broadus%2C+Montana%2C+1980-98&rft.title=Erosion+and+Deposition+of+Sediment+at+Channel+Cross+Sections+on+Powder+River+Between+Moorhead+and+Broadus%2C+Montana%2C+1980-98&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A15/MF A03
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Maine, Water Year 2003
AN  - 19575282; 7294956
AB  - The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, Federal, and other local governmental agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Maine each year. These data, accumulated during the many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. Water-resources data for the 2002 water year for Maine consists of records of stage, discharge, ground water levels, water quality of streams and ground-water wells, precipitation quantity, and snow quantity. This report contains discharge records for: 5 gage- height stations, 61 discharge gaging stations, stream water- quality data for 2 stations, water levels for 19 ground-water wells, water-quality data for 2 ground-water well, precipitation quantity data for 12 stations, and snow quantity data for 82 stations. Additional water data were collected at other sites, not part of the systematic data-collection program, and are published as special study and miscellaneous record sections.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Stewart, G J
AU  - Caldwell, J M
AU  - Cloutier, A R
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 268
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR-ME-03-1
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Maine
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Stage discharge relations
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Rivers
KW  - River basins
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Tables(Data)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Gauges
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Streams
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Data bases
KW  - Snow
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - water levels
KW  - Wells
KW  - Water wells
KW  - USA, Maine
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19575282?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Stewart%2C+G+J%3BCaldwell%2C+J+M%3BCloutier%2C+A+R&rft.aulast=Stewart&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=268&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Maine%2C+Water+Year+2003&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Maine%2C+Water+Year+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A13/MF A03; See also report for 2005, PB2006-110370.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Quality and Sources of Ground Water Used for Public Supply in Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, 2001
AN  - 19574587; 7290793
AB  - The purpose of this report is to evaluate the occurrence and distribution of natural and anthropogenic compounds in ground water used for public supply in Salt Lake Valley and to determine the general sources of recharge to the principal aquifer. Water samples were collected from 31 public-supply wells in 2001 and analyzed for field parameters, major ions, trace elements, radon, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), methylene blue active substances (MBAS), pesticides, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The samples also were analyzed for the stable isotopes of water (oxygen-18 and deuterium), tritium, chlorofluorocarbons, and dissolved gases to determine recharge sources and ground-water age.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Thiros, SA
AU  - Manning, AH
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 112
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4325
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Utah
KW  - Water supply
KW  - Potable water
KW  - Ground water recharge
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Wells
KW  - Contaminants
KW  - Samples
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - VOC(Volatile organic compounds)
KW  - Radon
KW  - Organic compounds in water
KW  - Deuterium
KW  - USA, Utah, Salt Lake Valley
KW  - Salt lakes
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Radon Radioisotopes
KW  - Agricultural Chemicals
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Volatile compounds
KW  - Dissolved organic carbon
KW  - USA, Utah
KW  - Trace elements in lake water
KW  - Dissolved gases
KW  - Salts
KW  - Trace elements in groundwater
KW  - USA, California, Lake Cty.
KW  - Aquifer recharge
KW  - Tritium
KW  - Volatile organic compound emission by motor vehicles
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - Organic Compounds
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Recharge
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - SW 3060:Water treatment and distribution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19574587?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Thiros%2C+SA%3BManning%2C+AH&rft.aulast=Thiros&rft.aufirst=SA&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=112&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Quality+and+Sources+of+Ground+Water+Used+for+Public+Supply+in+Salt+Lake+Valley%2C+Salt+Lake+County%2C+Utah%2C+2001&rft.title=Quality+and+Sources+of+Ground+Water+Used+for+Public+Supply+in+Salt+Lake+Valley%2C+Salt+Lake+County%2C+Utah%2C+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A07; See also PB2004-102159.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Concentrations of Dissolved Solids and Nutrients in Water Sources and Selected Streams of the Santa Ana Basin, California, October 1998-September 2001
AN  - 19573885; 7290798
AB  - The primary purpose of this report is to present an evaluation of dissolved solids and concentrations of selected nutrients in streams of the Santa Ana Basin as a function of water source. These sources include streamflow at reference sites in the foothills of two major mountain ranges (mountain sites), urban runoff (nonpoint source discharges unrelated to storm events), treated municipal wastewater, rising ground water, and stormflow. Constituent fluxes or loads are not presented in this report. The focus on water sources contrasts with the more common landscape- based approach to explain ambient surface-water-quality conditions. The hydrologic cycle of this semiarid, urban watershed differs from unaltered watersheds, and an understanding of the water quality related to each source may facilitate water-quality management decisions. A secondary purpose of this report is to present a comparison of TDS and nutrient concentrations observed during the study to water-quality standards, goals, objectives, and reference conditions.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Kent, R
AU  - Belitz, K
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4326
KW  - Dissolved solids
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Water sources
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - Ions
KW  - Stormflow
KW  - Runoff
KW  - Waste water
KW  - Basins
KW  - Santa Ana Basin
KW  - NAWQA(National Water Quality Assessment)
KW  - Dissolved Solids
KW  - water quality
KW  - nutrient concentrations
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Streams
KW  - Storms
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Mountains
KW  - Urban runoff
KW  - hydrologic cycle
KW  - Assessments
KW  - Municipal wastes
KW  - USA, California
KW  - River basin management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Nonpoint pollution
KW  - Water quality standards
KW  - Hydrologic cycle
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Water management
KW  - Nutrients (mineral)
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate
KW  - M2 556:General (556)
KW  - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19573885?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kent%2C+R%3BBelitz%2C+K&rft.aulast=Kent&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Concentrations+of+Dissolved+Solids+and+Nutrients+in+Water+Sources+and+Selected+Streams+of+the+Santa+Ana+Basin%2C+California%2C+October+1998-September+2001&rft.title=Concentrations+of+Dissolved+Solids+and+Nutrients+in+Water+Sources+and+Selected+Streams+of+the+Santa+Ana+Basin%2C+California%2C+October+1998-September+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A05; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 72 page document.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Water Resources Data for Georgia, 2003 Volumes 1 and 2 (on CDROM)
AN  - 19573746; 7294952
AB  - The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Georgia District, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local partners, is pleased to present the Water Resources Data for Georgia, 2003 CD-ROM report. Data from this report can be printed in two separate volumes: Volume 1 includes continuous water level, streamflow, water- quality data and selected periodic water-quality data collected during the 2003 water year from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2003; and Volume 2 includes continuous ground-water levels, and periodic surface-water- and ground-water-quality data collected during the 2003 calendar year from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003. Historically, this report was published as a paper report. For the 1999 water-year report, the USGS changed to a new, more informative and functional format on CD-ROM. The format is based on a geographic information system (GIS) user interface that allows the user to view map locations of the hydrologic monitoring stations and networks within respective river basins. Several methods are provided for users to easily search for and retrieve data on various stations, including the ability to delineate drainage areas for selected surface-water stations; and the ability to perform a radial search of USGS stations and wells by latitude and longitude. Graphical summaries of the current water year and selected historical streamflow data show seasonal and annual streamflow characteristics. Users can view or print site information and data tables in the traditional paper report format, or download data for use with other applications. The CD- ROM also contains user-friendly 'help' programs and examples. Data sets contained on this CD-ROM include: Continuous daily mean water levels; Continuous daily mean streamflow; Continuous daily total precipitation; Continuous daily water-quality; Continuous ground- water levels; Non-continuous peak streamflow; Miscellaneous streamflow measurements; Periodic surface-water-quality; Periodic ground-water-quality; Periodic ecological (new for 2003); and Historical continuous daily mean streamflow (all active and nonactive sites). Summaries of the station information and data contained on this CD-ROM may be saved and printed from the CD-ROM on a local computer.
JF  - Water Data Report. United States Geological Survey
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WDR/GA-03-1-CD, USGS-WDR/GA-03-2-CD
KW  - Streams
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Georgia
KW  - Gaging stations
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Discharge(Water)
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water table
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Water supply
KW  - CD-ROM
KW  - Water quality data
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - water quality
KW  - Historical account
KW  - Water resources data
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Data reports
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Remote sensing
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water Resources Data
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Computer programs
KW  - Geomorphology
KW  - Sulfur dioxide
KW  - Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
KW  - Ground water
KW  - longitude
KW  - Streamflow data
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Seasonal variations
KW  - Monitoring systems
KW  - Geographical Information Systems
KW  - Streamflow measurements
KW  - Drainage
KW  - River discharge
KW  - USA, Georgia
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - River basins
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - water levels
KW  - Geographic information systems
KW  - latitude
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18)
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19573746?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water+Resources+Data+for+Georgia%2C+2003+Volumes+1+and+2+%28on+CDROM%29&rft.title=Water+Resources+Data+for+Georgia%2C+2003+Volumes+1+and+2+%28on+CDROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - All software necessary for the operation of the Water Resources Data for Georgia, 2003 report are included on the CD- ROM. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605- 6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: CD-ROM CP D01; CD-ROM contains Search and Retrieval Software. See also PB2003- 500075, PB2002-500111, and PB2002-500089.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Relations Among Floodplain Water Levels, Instream Dissolved- Oxygen Conditions, and Streamflow in the Lower Roanoke River, North Carolina, 1997-2001
AN  - 19572795; 7290789
AB  - The lower Roanoke River corridor in North Carolina contains a floodplain of national significance. Data from a network of 1 streamflow-measurement site, 13 river-stage sites, 13 floodplain water-level sites located along 4 transects, and 5 in situ water- quality monitoring sites were used to characterize temporal and spatial variations of floodplain and river water levels during 1997-2000 and to describe dissolved-oxygen conditions in the lower Roanoke River for the period 1998-2001. Major differences in the relation of floodplain inundation to flow occurred both among sites at a given transect and among transects. Several floodplain sites were inundated for the full range of flow conditions measured during the study.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Bales, J D
AU  - Walters, DA
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4295
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Streamflows
KW  - Water pollution monitoring
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Dissolved-oxygen
KW  - Precipitation
KW  - Site characteristics
KW  - Data
KW  - River flow
KW  - River stage
KW  - Roanoke River(North Carolina)
KW  - USA, North Carolina
KW  - USA, North Carolina, Roanoke R.
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - flood plains
KW  - Streams
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Spatial variations
KW  - spatial distribution
KW  - Geomorphology
KW  - River levels
KW  - River Flow
KW  - Streamflow data
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Dissolved Oxygen
KW  - River discharge
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Flood Plains
KW  - Oxygen
KW  - water levels
KW  - Flood plains
KW  - River water
KW  - Monitoring
KW  - M2 556.53:Rivers, Streams, Canals (556.53)
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - Q2 09184:Composition of water
KW  - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19572795?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bales%2C+J+D%3BWalters%2C+DA&rft.aulast=Bales&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Relations+Among+Floodplain+Water+Levels%2C+Instream+Dissolved-+Oxygen+Conditions%2C+and+Streamflow+in+the+Lower+Roanoke+River%2C+North+Carolina%2C+1997-2001&rft.title=Relations+Among+Floodplain+Water+Levels%2C+Instream+Dissolved-+Oxygen+Conditions%2C+and+Streamflow+in+the+Lower+Roanoke+River%2C+North+Carolina%2C+1997-2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A06; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 90 page document. Prepared in cooperation with Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Conjunctive-Use Optimization Model and Sustainable-Yield Estimation for the Sparta Aquifer of Southeastern Arkansas and North-Central Louisiana
AN  - 19572045; 7290787
AB  - This report describes the application and evaluation of a conjunctive-use optimization model that was developed from a linear programming routine utilizing the calibrated Sparta aquifer flow model. The objective of the optimization modeling was to simulate maximum ground-water withdrawals from the Sparta aquifer and surface-water withdrawals from major streams in the Sparta outcrop/subcrop area while maintaining desirable hydraulic heads in the aquifer and streamflow in the outcrop. In essence, the objective was to estimate the 'sustainable yield' - indefinite ground-water withdrawals without compromising the integrity of the Sparta aquifer in Arkansas and Louisiana or streamflow in seven streams.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - McKee, P W
AU  - Clark, B R
AU  - Czarnecki, J B
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4231
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Flow models
KW  - Optimization
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Surface waters
KW  - Withdrawals
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Calibration
KW  - Streams
KW  - Boundary conditions
KW  - Sparta aquifer
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Model Studies
KW  - Calibrations
KW  - USA, Louisiana
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - USA, Arkansas
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Aquifer flow
KW  - SW 6010:Structures
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19572045?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McKee%2C+P+W%3BClark%2C+B+R%3BCzarnecki%2C+J+B&rft.aulast=McKee&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Conjunctive-Use+Optimization+Model+and+Sustainable-Yield+Estimation+for+the+Sparta+Aquifer+of+Southeastern+Arkansas+and+North-Central+Louisiana&rft.title=Conjunctive-Use+Optimization+Model+and+Sustainable-Yield+Estimation+for+the+Sparta+Aquifer+of+Southeastern+Arkansas+and+North-Central+Louisiana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A04; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 36 page document.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Generalized Water-Level Contours, September-October 2000 and March-April 2001, and Long-Term Water-Level Changes, at the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 and Vicinity, Palmdale, California
AN  - 19465837; 7293741
AB  - Historically, the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 has relied on ground water as the primary source of water owing, in large part, to the scarcity of surface water in the region. Ground-water withdrawal for municipal, industrial, and agricultural use has affected ground-water levels at U.S. Air Force Plant 42, and vicinity. A study to document changes in ground-water gradients and to present historical water-level data was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force. This report presents historical water-level data, hydrographs, and generalized seasonal water-level and water-level contours for September- October 2000 and March- April 2001. The collection and interpretation of ground-water data helps local water districts, military bases, and private citizens gain a better understanding of the ground-water flow systems, and consequently water availability.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Christensen, AH
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 136
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2005-5074
KW  - Air Force plant 42 (California)
KW  - Ground water
KW  - Water levels
KW  - Fluctuations
KW  - Water pollution
KW  - Air Force facilities
KW  - Hudrography
KW  - Water-level data
KW  - Water-level changes
KW  - Contours
KW  - Flow systems
KW  - Selective Withdrawal
KW  - Hydrograph analysis
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Geological Surveys
KW  - Water Level
KW  - Water Table
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Hydrographs
KW  - USA, California
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - SW 0840:Groundwater
KW  - AQ 00003:Monitoring and Analysis of Water and Wastes
KW  - M2 556.34:Groundwater Flow (556.34)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19465837?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Christensen%2C+AH&rft.aulast=Christensen&rft.aufirst=AH&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=136&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Generalized+Water-Level+Contours%2C+September-October+2000+and+March-April+2001%2C+and+Long-Term+Water-Level+Changes%2C+at+the+U.S.+Air+Force+Plant+42+and+Vicinity%2C+Palmdale%2C+California&rft.title=Generalized+Water-Level+Contours%2C+September-October+2000+and+March-April+2001%2C+and+Long-Term+Water-Level+Changes%2C+at+the+U.S.+Air+Force+Plant+42+and+Vicinity%2C+Palmdale%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A08; Prepared in cooperation with Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Collection, Analysis and Age-Dating of Sediment Cores from 56 U.S. Lakes and Reservoirs Sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1992-2001
AN  - 19443108; 7293331
AB  - The U.S. Geological Survey Reconstructed Trends National Synthesis study collected sediment cores from 56 lakes and reservoirs between 1992 and 2001 across the United States. Most of the sampling was conducted as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. The primary objective of the study was to determine trends in particle-associated contaminants in response to urbanization; 47 of the 56 lakes are in or near one of 20 U.S. cities. Sampling was done with gravity, piston, and box corers from boats and push cores from boats or by wading, depending on the depth of water and thickness of sediment being sampled. Chemical analyses included major and trace elements, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, cesium-137, and lead-210. Age-dating of the cores was done on the basis of radionuclide analyses and the position of the pre-reservoir land surface in the reservoir and, in a few cases, other chemical or lithologic depth-date markers.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Van Metre, PC
AU  - Wilson, J T
AU  - Fuller, C C
AU  - Callender, E
AU  - Mahler, B J
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 192
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5184
KW  - Sediments
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - United States
KW  - Chemical analysis
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Contaminants
KW  - Water pollution monitoring
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Trends
KW  - Streams
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Detection
KW  - Regulations
KW  - water quality
KW  - Organochlorine pesticides
KW  - Cesium
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - Urbanization
KW  - geological surveys
KW  - Lithology
KW  - Particulates
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Cores
KW  - Assessments
KW  - corers
KW  - Sampling
KW  - PCB compounds
KW  - PCB
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - boats
KW  - Sediment properties
KW  - Corers
KW  - Radioisotopes
KW  - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
KW  - Q2 09262:Methods and instruments
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 0870:Erosion and sedimentation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19443108?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Van+Metre%2C+PC%3BWilson%2C+J+T%3BFuller%2C+C+C%3BCallender%2C+E%3BMahler%2C+B+J&rft.aulast=Van+Metre&rft.aufirst=PC&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=192&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Collection%2C+Analysis+and+Age-Dating+of+Sediment+Cores+from+56+U.S.+Lakes+and+Reservoirs+Sampled+by+the+U.S.+Geological+Survey%2C+1992-2001&rft.title=Collection%2C+Analysis+and+Age-Dating+of+Sediment+Cores+from+56+U.S.+Lakes+and+Reservoirs+Sampled+by+the+U.S.+Geological+Survey%2C+1992-2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A10/MF A02
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Assessment of Water Quality, Benthic Invertebrates, and Periphyton in the Threemile Creek Basin, Mobile, Alabama, 1999- 2003
AN  - 19293410; 7293750
AB  - The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a 4-year investigation of water quality and aquatic-community structure in Threemile Creek, an urban stream that drains residential areas in Mobile, Alabama. Water-quality samples were collected between March 2000 and September 2003 at four sites on Threemile Creek, and between March 2000 and October 2001 at two tributary sites that drain heavily urbanized areas in the watershed. Stream samples were analyzed for major ions, nutrients, fecal-indicator bacteria, and selected organic wastewater compounds. Continuous measurements of dissolved- oxygen concentrations, water temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity were recorded at three sites on Threemile Creek during 1999-2003. Aquatic-community structure was evaluated by conducting one survey of the benthic invertebrate community and multiple surveys of the algal community (periphyton). Benthic invertebrate samples were collected in July 2000 at four sites on Threemile Creek; periphyton samples were collected at four sites on Threemile Creek and the two tributary sites during 2000-2003.
JF  - Scientific Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - McPherson, A K
AU  - Gill, A C
AU  - Moreland, R S
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 170
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-SIR-2004-5302
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water pollution sampling
KW  - Benthos
KW  - Invertebrates
KW  - River basins
KW  - Assessments
KW  - Water pollution effects
KW  - Urban areas
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Ions
KW  - Nutrients
KW  - Bacteria
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Aquatic ecosystems
KW  - Biological communities
KW  - Aufwuchs
KW  - Water chemistry
KW  - Land use
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Streams
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Mobile(Alabama)
KW  - water quality
KW  - Basins
KW  - invertebrates
KW  - Invertebrata
KW  - Stream Pollution
KW  - Drains
KW  - Tributaries
KW  - USA, Alabama, Mobile
KW  - Algae
KW  - Biological surveys
KW  - Conductance
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Surveys
KW  - Water temperature
KW  - Inland water environment
KW  - nutrients
KW  - Oxygen
KW  - Community composition
KW  - Geological surveys
KW  - Periphyton
KW  - Waste water
KW  - Zoobenthos
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Turbidity
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants
KW  - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms
KW  - K 03450:Ecology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19293410?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McPherson%2C+A+K%3BGill%2C+A+C%3BMoreland%2C+R+S&rft.aulast=McPherson&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=170&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Assessment+of+Water+Quality%2C+Benthic+Invertebrates%2C+and+Periphyton+in+the+Threemile+Creek+Basin%2C+Mobile%2C+Alabama%2C+1999-+2003&rft.title=Assessment+of+Water+Quality%2C+Benthic+Invertebrates%2C+and+Periphyton+in+the+Threemile+Creek+Basin%2C+Mobile%2C+Alabama%2C+1999-+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2007-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A09
N1  - Last updated - 2016-05-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Evaluation of Water-Quality and Habitat Assessment Data to Determine Ranges in Stream Conditions in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain of Northwestern Mississippi and Eastern Arkansas
AN  - 17871533; 6261596
AB  - The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with MDEQ collected water samples and assessed stream habitat at 43 sites in northwestern Mississippi and at 7 sites in eastern Arkansas during two index periods (winter, January-April 2002, and summer, July- September, 2002). This report: (1) documents methods of site selection and categorization, data collection, quality assurance and quality control, and statistical analysis used in this study; (2) presents summaries of the data collected for this study and comparisons to data collected in other studies located in the same study area; and (3) presents results of statistical analyses to determine whether any of the collected data could indicate a range of stream conditions for northwestern Mississippi streams.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Rebich, R A
AU  - Welch, H L
AU  - Coupe, R H
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4251
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - Quality assurance
KW  - Statistical analysis
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Habitat selection
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water analysis
KW  - Habitats
KW  - Assessments
KW  - Data Acquisition
KW  - Statistical Analysis
KW  - Sampling
KW  - Quality Control
KW  - Data Collections
KW  - Biological surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Environmental assessment
KW  - Plains
KW  - Data collections
KW  - Site selection
KW  - Aquatic Habitats
KW  - Quality control
KW  - Geological surveys
KW  - USA, Mississippi
KW  - Water samples
KW  - USA, Arkansas
KW  - Alluvial Plains
KW  - SW 5010:Network design
KW  - M3 1130:Water
KW  - Q5 08501:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17871533?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Rebich%2C+R+A%3BWelch%2C+H+L%3BCoupe%2C+R+H&rft.aulast=Rebich&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Water-Quality+and+Habitat+Assessment+Data+to+Determine+Ranges+in+Stream+Conditions+in+the+Mississippi+River+Alluvial+Plain+of+Northwestern+Mississippi+and+Eastern+Arkansas&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Water-Quality+and+Habitat+Assessment+Data+to+Determine+Ranges+in+Stream+Conditions+in+the+Mississippi+River+Alluvial+Plain+of+Northwestern+Mississippi+and+Eastern+Arkansas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A05; This document is color dependent and/or landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 54 page document. Prepared in cooperation with Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality, Jackson. Office of Pollution Control.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Hydrogeology, Water Quality, and Distribution and Sources of Salinity in the Floridan Aquifer System, Martin and St. Lucie Counties, Florida
AN  - 17346899; 6261589
AB  - Rapid urban development has raised concern about increased water use and the potential for degradation of water quality in the Floridan aquifer system in the Upper East Coast (UEC) of southern Florida. The UEC is one of four regional planning areas in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The UEC Planning Area encompasses about 1,200 mi2 and includes most of Martin and St. Lucie Counties and a small part of Okeechobee County. Water for urban and agricultural use in the UEC Planning Area comes from surface water, the surficial aquifer system, and the Floridan aquifer system.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Reese, R S
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4242
KW  - Aquifers
KW  - water quality
KW  - Pollution monitoring
KW  - Water reservoirs
KW  - USA, Florida
KW  - Urban Hydrology
KW  - Degradation
KW  - Urbanization
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Aquifer systems
KW  - Hydrogeology
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Urban planning
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Regional planning
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Groundwater Management
KW  - Regional Planning
KW  - Urban areas
KW  - water use
KW  - ASW, USA, Florida
KW  - Urban Planning
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Environmental impact
KW  - Surface-groundwater Relations
KW  - Salinity measurement
KW  - Water management
KW  - Fresh- and saltwater mixing
KW  - Aquifer Systems
KW  - Geohydrology
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17346899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Reese%2C+R+S&rft.aulast=Reese&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrogeology%2C+Water+Quality%2C+and+Distribution+and+Sources+of+Salinity+in+the+Floridan+Aquifer+System%2C+Martin+and+St.+Lucie+Counties%2C+Florida&rft.title=Hydrogeology%2C+Water+Quality%2C+and+Distribution+and+Sources+of+Salinity+in+the+Floridan+Aquifer+System%2C+Martin+and+St.+Lucie+Counties%2C+Florida&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A07; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 105 page document. Prepared in cooperation with South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-22
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Sediment and Fish Tissue from the Great Salt Lake Basins, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, 1998-99
AN  - 17337097; 6261608
AB  - A study to determine the occurrence and distribution of trace elements, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and semivolatile organic compounds in sediment and in fish tissue was conducted in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program during 1998- 99. Streambed-sediment and fish-tissue samples were collected concurrently at 11 sites and analyzed for trace-element concentration. An additional four sites were sampled for streambed sediment only and one site for fish tissue only. Organic compounds were analyzed from streambed sediment and fish-tissue samples at 15 sites.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Waddell, K M
AU  - Giddings, E M
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
SP  - 60
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4283
KW  - water quality
KW  - Tissues
KW  - Organochlorine pesticides
KW  - Water Pollution Sources
KW  - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
KW  - Basins
KW  - Pollution effects
KW  - Salt lakes
KW  - Freshwater fish
KW  - Streams
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Pisces
KW  - Agricultural Chemicals
KW  - Assessments
KW  - Lake Basins
KW  - PCB compounds
KW  - USA, Utah, Great Salt L.
KW  - PCB
KW  - USA, Utah
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - USA, Wyoming
KW  - Streambeds
KW  - salt lakes
KW  - Brackish
KW  - Trace Elements
KW  - USA, Idaho
KW  - Bioaccumulation
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Fish
KW  - Organic Compounds
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Volatile organic compounds
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms
KW  - SW 3030:Effects of pollution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17337097?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Waddell%2C+K+M%3BGiddings%2C+E+M&rft.aulast=Waddell&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=60&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Trace+Elements+and+Organic+Compounds+in+Sediment+and+Fish+Tissue+from+the+Great+Salt+Lake+Basins%2C+Utah%2C+Idaho%2C+and+Wyoming%2C+1998-99&rft.title=Trace+Elements+and+Organic+Compounds+in+Sediment+and+Fish+Tissue+from+the+Great+Salt+Lake+Basins%2C+Utah%2C+Idaho%2C+and+Wyoming%2C+1998-99&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A05; See also PB2001-105335. CL: Classification 68D Environmental Pollution & Control: Water Pollution & Control; 68C Environmental Pollution & Control: Solid Wastes Pollution & Control; 68F Environmental Pollution & Control: Radiation Pollution & Control; 57H Medicine & Biology: Ecology
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-22
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon
AN  - 17333854; 6261607
AB  - This report describes the mathematical simulation of regional ground-water flow in the upper Deschutes Basin in central Oregon. The report includes a description of the ground-water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin and how the hydrologic system was represented in the numerical model. The hydrologic data used for model calibration and the calibration procedures are also described. A discussion of model reliability and simulation of some hypothetical ground-water management scenarios are also included.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Gannett, M W
AU  - Lite, KE
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">United</span> <span class="hit">States</span> <span class="hit">Geological</span> <span class="hit">Survey</span>
KW  - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4195
KW  - Hydrologic Systems
KW  - Groundwater flow
KW  - Hydrologic data
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Hydrologic Models
KW  - Numerical models
KW  - Numerical simulations
KW  - Groundwater flow models
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - USA, Oregon
KW  - Groundwater
KW  - Groundwater Movement
KW  - Hydrologic Data
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - SW 0840:Groundwater
KW  - M2 556.3:Groundwater Hydrology (556.3)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17333854?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Gannett%2C+M+W%3BLite%2C+KE&rft.aulast=Gannett&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Simulation+of+Regional+Ground-Water+Flow+in+the+Upper+Deschutes+Basin%2C+Oregon&rft.title=Simulation+of+Regional+Ground-Water+Flow+in+the+Upper+Deschutes+Basin%2C+Oregon&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A06; This document is color dependent and/or in landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 95 page document. Prepared in cooperation with Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. and Oregon State Water Resources Dept., Salem.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements at Selected Stream-Gaging Stations in West Virginia, 1911-2002
AN  - 17331719; 6261598
AB  - This report describes the relations between drainage area, flow, and bank full stream channel characteristics at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia. The relation between flow and stream channel cross-sectional area, width, and average depth measured in current-meter flow measurements made between 1911 and 2002 were analyzed for stream-gaging stations on unregulated streams draining less then 2,000 mi(squared). The relation between flow and stream channel area, width, and average depth were also analyzed for cross sections at stream-gaging stations where three or more current-meter flow measurements had been made at flows between 0.5 and 5.0 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow, and where these relations appeared to be stable. The regional relations between drainage area and stream channel area, width, and average depth at the 1.5-year recurrence flow were determined using the latter set of data. Equations presented in this report are to be used to help field identification of bank full indicators.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Messinger, T
AU  - Wiley, J B
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 54
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4276
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
KW  - Q2 02171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17331719?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Messinger%2C+T%3BWiley%2C+J+B&rft.aulast=Messinger&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=54&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Regional+Relations+in+Bankfull+Channel+Characteristics+Determined+from+Flow+Measurements+at+Selected+Stream-Gaging+Stations+in+West+Virginia%2C+1911-2002&rft.title=Regional+Relations+in+Bankfull+Channel+Characteristics+Determined+from+Flow+Measurements+at+Selected+Stream-Gaging+Stations+in+West+Virginia%2C+1911-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A05/MF A01
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-13
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Evaluation of Streamflow, Water Quality, and Permitted and Nonpermitted Loads and Yields in the Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, Water Years 1991-98
AN  - 16200081; 6261597
AB  - This report documents the results of the analyses for 17 water-quality constituents in 801 samples collected at 21 surface-water sampling sites in the Raritan River Basin during water years 1991 through 1997. This evaluation of water quality includes statistical analysis of the water-quality data; analysis of data on constituent concentrations, pH water temperature, and fecal coliform bacteria counts in relation to water-quality reference levels; comparisons of data between sites; analysis of changes in constituent concentrations, pH, water temperature, and fecal coliform bacteria by season and flow condition; and in investigation of trends over time at each site. In addition to the results of analyses for the 17 constituents, results of analyses for other constituents reported in previous studies are summarized in this report. This summary includes results from recent studies on pesticides and volatile organic compounds in surface water and trace elements and organic compounds in streambed sediments. Results from other recent studies on trends and relations of water quality to stream flow also are summarized to give a more comprehensive evaluation of water-quality conditions in the nontidal parts of streams in the Raritan River Basin. This report also describes the results of the analysis of load of eight constituents that characterize the water quality and health of streams in the Raritan River Basin.
JF  - Water Resources Investigations Report. United States Geological Survey
AU  - Reiser, R G
Y1  - 2004///0,
PY  - 2004
DA  - 0, 2004
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - USGS-WRI-03-4207
KW  - water quality
KW  - River Basins
KW  - USA, New Jersey
KW  - Water Temperature
KW  - Water Sampling
KW  - Surface Water
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Water analysis
KW  - Trace elements
KW  - Evaluation
KW  - Statistical Analysis
KW  - pH
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - River basins
KW  - Data collections
KW  - Stream flow
KW  - Organic Compounds
KW  - Volatile organic compounds
KW  - USA, New Jersey, Raritan R.
KW  - Water sampling
KW  - Water Analysis
KW  - Surface water
KW  - Streams
KW  - Flow rates
KW  - Volatile compounds
KW  - Bacteria
KW  - Sediment pollution
KW  - Coliforms
KW  - Fecal coliforms
KW  - Hydrogen Ion Concentration
KW  - Trace Elements
KW  - Streamflow
KW  - Sediments
KW  - ANW, USA, New Jersey
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - stream flow
KW  - Organic compounds
KW  - Stream Discharge
KW  - water temperature
KW  - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION
KW  - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution
KW  - AQ 00003:Monitoring and Analysis of Water and Wastes
KW  - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16200081?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Reiser%2C+R+G&rft.aulast=Reiser&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Streamflow%2C+Water+Quality%2C+and+Permitted+and+Nonpermitted+Loads+and+Yields+in+the+Raritan+River+Basin%2C+New+Jersey%2C+Water+Years+1991-98&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Streamflow%2C+Water+Quality%2C+and+Permitted+and+Nonpermitted+Loads+and+Yields+in+the+Raritan+River+Basin%2C+New+Jersey%2C+Water+Years+1991-98&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2005-07-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: AV A11; This document is color dependent and/or landscape layout. It is currently available on CD-ROM and paper only. CD-ROM contains a 222 page document.
N1  - Last updated - 2016-12-22
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Digital Databases and CD-ROM for the Boulder River Watershed
AN  - 14749870; 10684902
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Rich, Carl L
AU  - Litke, David W
AU  - Granitto, Matthew
AU  - Pelltier, Richard T
AU  - Sole, Tracy C
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 505
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - DATA MANAGEMENT
KW  - COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
KW  - AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
KW  - REMOTE SENSING
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - SEDIMENT
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14749870?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Digital+Databases+and+CD-ROM+for+the+Boulder+River+Watershed&rft.au=Rich%2C+Carl+L%3BLitke%2C+David+W%3BGranitto%2C+Matthew%3BPelltier%2C+Richard+T%3BSole%2C+Tracy+C&rft.aulast=Rich&rft.aufirst=Carl&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=505&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 4 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; SEDIMENT; METAL MINING; STREAMS; MONITORING, WATER; DATA MANAGEMENT; AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS; REMOTE SENSING; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Short-Term Variation of Trace-Element Concentrations During Base Flow and Rainfall Runoff in Small Basins, August 1999
AN  - 14749822; 10684894
AB  - Water quality data for the Boulder River, MT, watershed indicated that dissolved zinc levels vary cyclically throughout the day during base flow. Hourly Zn variations were examined at five sites; arsenic, copper, and manganese were also examined at one site. Dissolved Zn concentrations in High Ore Creek varied by about 400 mu g/l during a 24-h period, representing a three-fold change in concentration. Within 1-5 h following the onset of intense rain, dissolved Zn levels increased rapidly at all study sites.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Lambing, John H
AU  - Nimick, David A
AU  - Cleasby, Thomas E
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 267
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - STORM RUNOFF
KW  - ZINC
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - DIURNAL CHANGES
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14749822?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Short-Term+Variation+of+Trace-Element+Concentrations+During+Base+Flow+and+Rainfall+Runoff+in+Small+Basins%2C+August+1999&rft.au=Lambing%2C+John+H%3BNimick%2C+David+A%3BCleasby%2C+Thomas+E&rft.aulast=Lambing&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=267&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 5 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; ZINC; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; STREAMS; STORM RUNOFF; DIURNAL CHANGES; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Quantification of Metal Loading by Tracer Injection and Synoptic Sampling, 1997-98
AN  - 14749776; 10684893
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Kimball, Briant A
AU  - Runkel, Robert L
AU  - Cleasby, Thomas E
AU  - Nimick, David A
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 197
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14749776?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Quantification+of+Metal+Loading+by+Tracer+Injection+and+Synoptic+Sampling%2C+1997-98&rft.au=Kimball%2C+Briant+A%3BRunkel%2C+Robert+L%3BCleasby%2C+Thomas+E%3BNimick%2C+David+A&rft.aulast=Kimball&rft.aufirst=Briant&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=197&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 38 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; MONITORING, WATER; STREAMS; MINE TAILINGS; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluating the Success of Remediation in the Boulder River Watershed
AN  - 14749256; 10684901
AB  - Ecological risk-based synthesis concludes that areas downstream from the Comet, Crystal, and Bullion mines are among the most contaminated in the Boulder River, MT, watershed. Federal and state land managers have targeted these sites for remediation. Monitoring can provide a means to gauge the success of remedial activities and the rate or extent of recovery of the ecosystem. Recommended monitoring tools should include measures of physicochemical and biological conditions similar to measurements used in the pre-remediation watershed assessment. Factors including the geology, water quality, and presence of a biological community for recolonization will determine the rate of success of ecological restoration.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Finger, Susan E
AU  - Church, Stanley E
AU  - Nimick, David A
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 497
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - ENV QUALITY ASSESSMENT
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - ENV REMEDIATION
KW  - AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14749256?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Evaluating+the+Success+of+Remediation+in+the+Boulder+River+Watershed&rft.au=Finger%2C+Susan+E%3BChurch%2C+Stanley+E%3BNimick%2C+David+A&rft.aulast=Finger&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=497&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t Tables
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; MONITORING, WATER; AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS; ENV REMEDIATION; ENV QUALITY ASSESSMENT; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Summary and Conclusions from Investigation of the Effects of Historical Mining in the Bouler River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AN  - 14749224; 10684887
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 3
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - ENV RESTORATION
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION DAMAGE
KW  - MINE RECLAMATION
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ACID MINE DRAINAGE
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14749224?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Summary+and+Conclusions+from+Investigation+of+the+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Bouler+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; ENV RESTORATION; METAL MINING; STREAMS; WATER POLLUTION DAMAGE; MINE RECLAMATION; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; ACID MINE DRAINAGE
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Hydrogeology of the Boulder River Watershed Study Area and Examination of the Regional Ground-Water Flow System Using Interpreted Fracture Mapping from Remote Sensing Data
AN  - 14748839; 10684896
AB  - Shallow unconsolidated and upper fracture-controlled groundwater flow regimes in the Boulder River, MT, watershed are described. Remote sensing data were used to map linear surface features that are interpreted as fractures and are assumed to be linked with regional fracture-controlled subsurface flow. The direction of shallow groundwater flow can be modeled as the gradient of topographic slope. The observation of highest interpreted fracture frequency on the Continental Divide at the northern boundary of the study area is significant in that this area may provide potential recharge for fracture-controlled groundwater.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - McDougal, Robert R
AU  - Cannon, M R
AU  - Smith, Bruce D
AU  - Ruppert, David A
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 341
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - FLOW MEASUREMENT
KW  - REMOTE SENSING
KW  - LITHOLOGY
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14748839?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Hydrogeology+of+the+Boulder+River+Watershed+Study+Area+and+Examination+of+the+Regional+Ground-Water+Flow+System+Using+Interpreted+Fracture+Mapping+from+Remote+Sensing+Data&rft.au=McDougal%2C+Robert+R%3BCannon%2C+M+R%3BSmith%2C+Bruce+D%3BRuppert%2C+David+A&rft.aulast=McDougal&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=341&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; FLOW MEASUREMENT; REMOTE SENSING; LITHOLOGY; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; GROUNDWATER
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Boulder River Watershed Study, Jefferson County, Montana
AN  - 14748813; 10684888
AB  - The biological, hydrological, and geological setting of the Boulder River watershed study area in Montana is detailed, and regional mining history is chronicled. Over 140 inactive mine-related sites lie in the study area, and many of these have been inventories for state and federal agencies to help target likely mine and mill sites for remediation. Inactive mines affect streams through discharge of acid drainage from adits, seepage from waste rock and tailings piles, and erosion of tailings piles.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Church, Stanley E
AU  - Nimick, David A
AU  - Finger, Susan E
AU  - O'Neill, JMichael
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 15
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - ENV REMEDIATION
KW  - AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
KW  - MINE RECLAMATION
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14748813?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=The+Boulder+River+Watershed+Study%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.au=Church%2C+Stanley+E%3BNimick%2C+David+A%3BFinger%2C+Susan+E%3BO%27Neill%2C+JMichael&rft.aulast=Church&rft.aufirst=Stanley&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 2 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL MINING; AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS; ENV REMEDIATION; MINE RECLAMATION; MINE TAILINGS; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Understanding Trace-Element Sources and Transport to Upper Basin Creek in the Vicinity of the Buckeye and Enterprise Mines
AN  - 14747837; 10684898
AB  - Overland runoff from the inactive Buckeye and Enterprise Mine areas is rich in trace elements and impacts water quality in upper Basin Creek of the Boulder River watershed in Montana. In spring, runoff from the mine area caused concentrations of zinc, lead, and copper in upper Basin Creek to exceed state aquatic life standards. For all trace elements, except arsenic, groundwater contributed only a small part of the dissolved trace elemental load to upper Basin Creek.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Cannon, M R
AU  - Church, Stanley E
AU  - Fey, David L
AU  - McDougal, Robert R
AU  - Smith, Bruce D
AU  - Nimick, David A
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 407
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - STORM RUNOFF
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - LEACHING
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14747837?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Understanding+Trace-Element+Sources+and+Transport+to+Upper+Basin+Creek+in+the+Vicinity+of+the+Buckeye+and+Enterprise+Mines&rft.au=Cannon%2C+M+R%3BChurch%2C+Stanley+E%3BFey%2C+David+L%3BMcDougal%2C+Robert+R%3BSmith%2C+Bruce+D%3BNimick%2C+David+A&rft.aulast=Cannon&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=407&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 17 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; LEACHING; MONITORING, WATER; STREAMS; MINE TAILINGS; STORM RUNOFF; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Trace Elements and Lead Isotopes in Streambed Sediment in Streams Affected by Historical Mining
AN  - 14747807; 10684895
AB  - Assessment of deposit-related and rock-forming trace elements in streambed sediment in the Boulder River, MT, watershed provided the data needed to delineate stream reaches with elevated contaminant concentrations. Concentrations of the suite of deposit-related metals were elevated in modern streambed sediment downstream from the confluence with Basin, Cataract, and High Ore Creeks. Metal concentrations in these reaches exceeded the screening level concentration for aquatic biota. Lead isotopic data helped distinguish between a source of deposit Pb represented by polymetallic vein deposits in both the Basin and Cataract Creek basins, and a second at the Comet mine in High Ore Creek basin.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Church, Stanley M
AU  - Unruh, Daniel M
AU  - Fey, David L
AU  - Sole, Tracy C
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 283
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - SEDIMENT
KW  - RADIOISOTOPIC TRACERS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - LEAD
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14747807?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Trace+Elements+and+Lead+Isotopes+in+Streambed+Sediment+in+Streams+Affected+by+Historical+Mining&rft.au=Church%2C+Stanley+M%3BUnruh%2C+Daniel+M%3BFey%2C+David+L%3BSole%2C+Tracy+C&rft.aulast=Church&rft.aufirst=Stanley&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=283&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 14 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; SEDIMENT; METAL MINING; STREAMS; RADIOISOTOPIC TRACERS; LEAD; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Synthesis of Water, Sediment, and Biological Data Using Hazard Quotients to Assess Ecosystem Health
AN  - 14747775; 10684889
AB  - Potential ecological effects of mining-related trace elements on aquatic ecosystems in the Boulder River, MT, watershed were estimated from measured geologic, geochemical, and hydrological conditions. Estimates were validated by comparison with measured biological responses. Hazard quotients calculated with chronic water quality criteria and with sediment probable-effects concentrations generally agreed with measurements of biology to designate the primary areas of potential hazard in the watershed. Fish were absent from all of these areas, and poor survival in 96-h survival trials indicated that trout would be unable to survive in these stream reaches. Remediation measures that include removal of mine wastes from valley floors and reduction of metal loading from draining adits could substantially improve ecological health in the watershed.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Finger, Susan E
AU  - Farag, Aida M
AU  - Nimick, David A
AU  - Church, Stanley E
AU  - Sole, Tracy C
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 31
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - SEDIMENT
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS, WATER
KW  - ENV REMEDIATION
KW  - FISH, FRESHWATER
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ACID MINE DRAINAGE
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14747775?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Synthesis+of+Water%2C+Sediment%2C+and+Biological+Data+Using+Hazard+Quotients+to+Assess+Ecosystem+Health&rft.au=Finger%2C+Susan+E%3BFarag%2C+Aida+M%3BNimick%2C+David+A%3BChurch%2C+Stanley+E%3BSole%2C+Tracy+C&rft.aulast=Finger&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=31&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 2 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; SEDIMENT; METAL MINING; BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS, WATER; FISH, FRESHWATER; ENV REMEDIATION; MINE TAILINGS; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; ACID MINE DRAINAGE
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Metal Leaching in Mine-Waste Materials and Two Schemes for Classification of Potential Environmental Effects of Mine-waste Piles
AN  - 14747623; 10684891
AB  - Leach and acidity analyses were conducted on solid waste material collected from 19 metal mining-related dumps at 10 sites in the Boulder River, MT, watershed study area. Two classification schemes were developed to evaluate the potential environmental effects of mine waste piles. Mineralogical and geochemical analyses of a vertical core of tailings showed a distinction in the amount of deposit-related elements between surface and buried waste material. Metal mining wastes had classifications ranging from low to high potential for causing environmental degradation. The classification schemes derived from chemical and waste pile size data offer a means to compare the potential of waste piles in a watershed to cause environmental degradation.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Fey, David L
AU  - Desborough, George A
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 139
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - LEACHING
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ACID MINE DRAINAGE
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14747623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Metal+Leaching+in+Mine-Waste+Materials+and+Two+Schemes+for+Classification+of+Potential+Environmental+Effects+of+Mine-waste+Piles&rft.au=Fey%2C+David+L%3BDesborough%2C+George+A&rft.aulast=Fey&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=139&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; LEACHING; SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS; MINE TAILINGS; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; ACID MINE DRAINAGE
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Aquatic Health and Exposure Pathways of Trace Elements
AN  - 14746593; 10684897
AB  - Biological studies were conducted in the Boulder River, MT, watershed to characterize the aquatic health of fisheries and the exposure pathway of trace elements released from historical mine adits and tailings. Instream survivability research at sites that had no resident trout and were downstream from inactive mines indicated that elevated concentrations of filter copper, zinc, and cadmium were associated with increased mortality and necrosis of epithelial cells in gills of hatchery trout. Concentrations of all trace elements, except Cd, in colloids and biofilm were strongly correlated, indicating that transfer of metals associated with colloids to biological portions of biofilm is a major pathway in which metals associated with abiotic components are first present to biotic components.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Farag, Aida M
AU  - Nimick, David A
AU  - Kimball, Briant A
AU  - Church, Stanley E
AU  - Skaar, Don
AU  - Brumbaugh, William G
AU  - Hogstrand, Christer
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 373
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - BIOACCUMULATION, FISH
KW  - COLLOIDS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - TROUT
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - FOOD CHAINS
KW  - BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS, WATER
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14746593?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Aquatic+Health+and+Exposure+Pathways+of+Trace+Elements&rft.au=Farag%2C+Aida+M%3BNimick%2C+David+A%3BKimball%2C+Briant+A%3BChurch%2C+Stanley+E%3BSkaar%2C+Don%3BBrumbaugh%2C+William+G%3BHogstrand%2C+Christer&rft.aulast=Farag&rft.aufirst=Aida&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=373&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 2 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; COLLOIDS; BIOACCUMULATION, FISH; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; FOOD CHAINS; TROUT; BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS, WATER; MINE TAILINGS; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Geologic, Geophysical, and Seismic Characterization of the Luttrell Pit as a Mine-Waste Repository
AN  - 14746174; 10684900
AB  - Geologic and geophysical studies conducted near the Luttrell pit at the former Basin Creek mine in the Boulder River, MT, watershed provide technical data that characterize the mine waste repository site. Analysis of airborne geophysical data indicate a greater structural and lithologic complexity than suggested by geologic mapping. Bedrock in the immediate area of the pit does not have high acid neutralizing potential as interpreted from airborne geophysical data. A northeast-trending structural zone 0.25 mi south of the pit may influence the local flow of groundwater in fractures and would be a possible area for bedrock groundwater monitoring.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Smith, Bruce D
AU  - McDougal, Robert R
AU  - Lund, Karen
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 477
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - REMOTE SENSING
KW  - LITHOLOGY
KW  - DISPOSAL SITES
KW  - SEISMOLOGY
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14746174?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Geologic%2C+Geophysical%2C+and+Seismic+Characterization+of+the+Luttrell+Pit+as+a+Mine-Waste+Repository&rft.au=Smith%2C+Bruce+D%3BMcDougal%2C+Robert+R%3BLund%2C+Karen&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Bruce&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=477&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; REMOTE SENSING; LITHOLOGY; MINE TAILINGS; DISPOSAL SITES; SEISMOLOGY; GROUNDWATER; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Trace Elements in Water in Streams Affected by Historical Mining
AN  - 14745211; 10684892
AB  - Water quality data collected in and near the Boulder River, MT, watershed during 1996-2000, as well as historical data, were analyzed to delineate stream reaches with elevated trace element concentrations, identify trace element sources, and evaluate the potential for trace element toxicity to biota. Highest metal concentrations occurred in small streams downstream from a few inactive mines. Cadmium, Cu, lead, and zinc levels in streams affected by historical mining were higher than aquatic life standards. Concentrations exceeded acute aquatic life standards by as much as 20-fold, but few stream reaches had acidic pH.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Nimick, David A
AU  - Cleasby, Thomas E
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 159
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14745211?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Trace+Elements+in+Water+in+Streams+Affected+by+Historical+Mining&rft.au=Nimick%2C+David+A%3BCleasby%2C+Thomas+E&rft.aulast=Nimick&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=159&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 4 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; METAL MINING; WATER QUALITY CRITERIA; STREAMS; MINE TAILINGS; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Geologic Framework, Geophysical Characterization of Geologic Features with Environmental Implications from Airborne Magnetic and Apparent Resistivity Data, Mine Inventory
AN  - 14745172; 10684890
AB  - The geological setting of the Boulder River watershed study area in Montana is described. Geophysical characteristics of geologic features with environmental implications from airborne magnetic and apparent resistivity data are also covered. Geological and geophysical maps depict acid-neutralizing and -generating potentials. An inventory of inactive and historical mines and mine-related sites was compiled. The information includes the presence and the pH of flowing water from an adit, the presence and estimated volume of mine waste and mill tailings, and estimates of past production.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - O'Neill, JMichael
AU  - Lunf, Karen
AU  - Van Gosen, Bradley S
AU  - Desborough, George A
AU  - Sole, Tracy C
AU  - DeWitt, Ed H
AU  - McCafferty, Anne E
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 49
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - AERIAL SURVEILLANCE
KW  - WATERSHEDS
KW  - LITHOLOGY
KW  - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
KW  - ACID MINE DRAINAGE
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14745172?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Geologic+Framework%2C+Geophysical+Characterization+of+Geologic+Features+with+Environmental+Implications+from+Airborne+Magnetic+and+Apparent+Resistivity+Data%2C+Mine+Inventory&rft.au=O%27Neill%2C+JMichael%3BLunf%2C+Karen%3BVan+Gosen%2C+Bradley+S%3BDesborough%2C+George+A%3BSole%2C+Tracy+C%3BDeWitt%2C+Ed+H%3BMcCafferty%2C+Anne+E&rft.aulast=O%27Neill&rft.aufirst=JMichael&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=49&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 5 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - WATERSHEDS; METAL MINING; MINE TAILINGS; LITHOLOGY; AERIAL SURVEILLANCE; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; ACID MINE DRAINAGE
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Monitoring Remediation-Have Mine-Waste and Mill-Tailings Removal and Flood-Plain Restoration been Successful in the HighOre Creek Valley?
AN  - 14744663; 10684899
AB  - Large-scale remediation in the High Ore Creek valley, where mine wastes and mill tailings from past mining activity have released metals that impacted the aquatic environment, included both removal actions and in-place treatments. Monitoring data collected before and after remediation at the site in the Boulder River, MT, watershed provide a basis for documenting the effects of cleanup actions on trace element concentrations. Dissolved zinc levels have declined in High Ore Creek while dissolved arsenic concentrations have increased, probably due to desorption and leaching associated with liming of waste materials.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1652: Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana
AU  - Gelinas, Sharon L
AU  - Tupling, Robert
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 461
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - METAL MINING
KW  - SEDIMENT
KW  - SOIL CONTAMINATION
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - MINE TAILINGS
KW  - METAL CONTAMINATION
KW  - ENV REMEDIATION
KW  - MINE RECLAMATION
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14744663?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.atitle=Monitoring+Remediation-Have+Mine-Waste+and+Mill-Tailings+Removal+and+Flood-Plain+Restoration+been+Successful+in+the+HighOre+Creek+Valley%3F&rft.au=Gelinas%2C+Sharon+L%3BTupling%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Gelinas&rft.aufirst=Sharon&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=461&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1652%3A+Integrated+Investigations+of+Environmental+Effects+of+Historical+Mining+in+the+Basin+and+Boulder+Mining+Districts%2C+Boulder+River+Watershed%2C+Jefferson+County%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 4 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONTAMINATION; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; SEDIMENT; METAL MINING; SOIL CONTAMINATION; MONITORING, WATER; ENV REMEDIATION; MINE RECLAMATION; MINE TAILINGS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - The World's Largest Floods, Past and Present: Their Causes and Magnitudes
AN  - 14741446; 10677352
AB  - The causes and magnitudes of the world's largest floods, including those measured and documented by modern methodize in historic times, are delineated. Floods of prehistoric times, for which the only records are those left by the floods themselves, are also considered. Topics covered include floods from ice-dammed lakes, basin-breach floods, floods related to volcanism, floods from breached landslide dams, ice-jam floods, and large meteorological floods. The largest Quaternary floods from natural dam failures and closed basin spillovers have occurred in the mid-latitudes, while the largest meteorological floods have been recorded in tropical regions.
JF  - USGS Circular 1254
AU  - O'Conoor, Jim E
AU  - Costa, John E
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - LAKES
KW  - DAMS
KW  - CLIMATIC COMPARISONS
KW  - LANDSLIDES
KW  - FLOODS
KW  - SNOWMELT
KW  - ENV HISTORY
KW  - VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14741446?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1254&rft.atitle=The+World%27s+Largest+Floods%2C+Past+and+Present%3A+Their+Causes+and+Magnitudes&rft.au=O%27Conoor%2C+Jim+E%3BCosta%2C+John+E&rft.aulast=O%27Conoor&rft.aufirst=Jim&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1254&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-05302.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 2 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - LAKES; LANDSLIDES; DAMS; FLOODS; SNOWMELT; ENV HISTORY; VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS; CLIMATIC COMPARISONS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Santa Ana Basin, California, 1999-2001
AN  - 14737451; 10675725
AB  - Groundwater and river and stream water quality in the Santa Ana Basin of California was monitored during 1999-2001. Nitrate levels in the Santa Ana River and Cucamonga Creek were high and occasionally exceeded the EPA drinking water standard. VOCs were detected in 100% of 106 surface water samples collected from three sites in urban areas; pesticides were detected in 104 of 105 surface water samples from these urban areas. Groundwater recharged since the 1950s has higher concentrations of nitrate and dissolved solids than older groundwater. Pesticides and VOCs were detected more frequently in aquifers of the Santa Ana basin relative to aquifers assessed nationwide.
JF  - USGS Circular 1238
AU  - Belitz, Kenneth
AU  - Hamlin, Scott N
AU  - Burton, Carmen A
AU  - Kent, Robert
AU  - Fay, Ronald G
AU  - Johnson, Tyler
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - WATER ANALYSIS
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - CALIFORNIA
KW  - ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE
KW  - RIVERS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14737451?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1238&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Santa+Ana+Basin%2C+California%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Belitz%2C+Kenneth%3BHamlin%2C+Scott+N%3BBurton%2C+Carmen+A%3BKent%2C+Robert%3BFay%2C+Ronald+G%3BJohnson%2C+Tyler&rft.aulast=Belitz&rft.aufirst=Kenneth&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1238&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-03654.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 40 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - CALIFORNIA; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE; MONITORING, WATER; RIVERS; NITRATES; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; WATER ANALYSIS; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii, 1999-2001
AN  - 14735881; 10675726
AB  - Water quality data documented during monitoring campaigns in Oahu, HI, during 1999-2001 are analyzed. Urban alteration of stream habitat gas adversely impacted native aquatic species and allowed for the survival of introduced species. Carbaryl, diazinon, dieldrin, and malathion residues exceeded aquatic life guidelines in streams. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels frequently exceeded state stream water standards. Solvents, fumigants, herbicides, and elevated nutrient concentrations were the chemicals most commonly detected in untreated groundwater from public supply and monitoring wells.
JF  - USGS Circular 1239
AU  - Anthony, Stephen S
AU  - Hunt, Charles DJr
AU  - Brasher, Anne MD
AU  - Miller, Lisa D
AU  - Tomlinson, Michael S
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - HAWAII
KW  - AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - NITROGEN
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - PHOSPHORUS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14735881?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1239&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+on+the+Island+of+Oahu%2C+Hawaii%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Anthony%2C+Stephen+S%3BHunt%2C+Charles+DJr%3BBrasher%2C+Anne+MD%3BMiller%2C+Lisa+D%3BTomlinson%2C+Michael+S&rft.aulast=Anthony&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1239&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-03655.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 4 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - HAWAII; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF; MONITORING, WATER; STREAMS; PHOSPHORUS; NITROGEN; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; GROUNDWATER
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska, 1998-2001
AN  - 14733052; 10675426
AB  - Water quality conditions in Cook Inlet Basin, AK, were monitored during 1998-2001. Water qualityis generally good in the study area, supporting most beneficial uses of water most of the time. Pesticides and VOCs were detected in nearly all samples from a creek draining urban areas in Anchorage; concentrations were generally below drinking water standards and aquatic life guidelines. Nitrate levels generally were low in streams while fecal indicator bacteria concentrations in urban streams varied widely. Concentrations of most chemical constituents in groundwater met state and federal drinking water standards. Pesticides and VOCs were found only in low concentrations in groundwater. Radon levels exceeded the proposed EPA drinking water standard of 300 pCi/l in water from 39% of the wells sampled.
JF  - USGS Circular 1240
AU  - Glass, Roy L
AU  - Brabets, Timothy P
AU  - Frenzel, Steven A
AU  - Whitman, Matthew S
AU  - Ourso, Robert T
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - ALASKA
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - URBAN WATER RESOURCES
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - RADON
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14733052?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1240&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Cook+Inlet+Basin%2C+Alaska%2C+1998-2001&rft.au=Glass%2C+Roy+L%3BBrabets%2C+Timothy+P%3BFrenzel%2C+Steven+A%3BWhitman%2C+Matthew+S%3BOurso%2C+Robert+T&rft.aulast=Glass&rft.aufirst=Roy&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1240&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-03355.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 2 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - URBAN WATER RESOURCES; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; STREAMS; ALASKA; NITRATES; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; RADON; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Nation's Streams and Aquifers-Overview of Selected Findings, 1991-2001
AN  - 14723339; 10670875
AB  - Findings of regional and national interest documented during 1991-2001 by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program are summarized. Examples are cited to illustrate the link between water quality and land use, and to highlight agricultural and urban sources of nonpoint pollution. Interactions among water, air, and aquatic ecosystems are covered, as are changes in water quality over time. Overall, contamination of streams and groundwater is widespread in agricultural and urban areas, and is marked by complex mixtures of trace elements, VOCs, nutrients, pesticides, and their chemical breakdown products.
JF  - USGS Circular 1265
AU  - Hamilton, Pixie A
AU  - Miller, Timothy L
AU  - Myers, Donna N
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - TRACE ELEMENTS
KW  - LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
KW  - WATER POLLUTION EFFECTS
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - POLLUTANT FATE
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - URBAN RUNOFF
KW  - TEMPORAL COMPARISONS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14723339?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1265&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Nation%27s+Streams+and+Aquifers-Overview+of+Selected+Findings%2C+1991-2001&rft.au=Hamilton%2C+Pixie+A%3BMiller%2C+Timothy+L%3BMyers%2C+Donna+N&rft.aulast=Hamilton&rft.aufirst=Pixie&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1265&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 8 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - LAND USE CLASSIFICATION; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF; STREAMS; MONITORING, WATER; POLLUTANT FATE; URBAN RUNOFF; TRACE ELEMENTS; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; WATER POLLUTION EFFECTS; GROUNDWATER; TEMPORAL COMPARISONS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin: Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, 1999-2001
AN  - 14723077; 10673306
AB  - Results of water quality monitoring during 1999-2001 in the Yellowstone River basin of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are reported. Stream water quality was largely influenced by natural factors, and concentrations of manufactured compounds such as pesticides generally were low in streams, fish tissue, and bed sediment. Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and Escherichia coli were higher in urban and agricultural streams relative to forested and rangeland streams. Dissolved solids concentrations in aquifer samples frequently exceeded the federal secondary drinking water guideline of 500 mg/l.
JF  - USGS Circular 1234
AU  - Peterson, David A
AU  - Miller, Kirk A
AU  - Bartos, Timothy T
AU  - Clark, Melanie L
AU  - Porter, Stephen D
AU  - Quinn, Thomas L
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - FECAL COLIFORM
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - DISSOLVED SOLIDS
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14723077?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1234&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Yellowstone+River+Basin%3A+Wyoming%2C+Montana%2C+and+North+Dakota%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Peterson%2C+David+A%3BMiller%2C+Kirk+A%3BBartos%2C+Timothy+T%3BClark%2C+Melanie+L%3BPorter%2C+Stephen+D%3BQuinn%2C+Thomas+L&rft.aulast=Peterson&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1234&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - FECAL COLIFORM; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; DISSOLVED SOLIDS; STREAMS; MONITORING, WATER; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; GROUNDWATER; YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, 1991-2001
AN  - 14721820; 10673307
AB  - Surface water sampled in the Mobile River basin of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee during 1991-2001 generally met federal and state drinking water standards and guidelines for aquatic life protection. Elevated concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, and other organic compounds reflected adverse impacts of urban and agricultural activities. Chlordane and DDT levels in whole fish exceeded guidelines for protection of fish-eating wildlife at 13 of 19 sites. Nitrate levels in shallow monitoring wells were generally higher in urban and agricultural areas and exceeded the EPA drinking water standard in three wells.
JF  - USGS Circular 1231
AU  - Atkins, JBrian
AU  - Zappia, Humbert
AU  - Robinson, James L
AU  - McPherson, Ann K
AU  - Moreland, Richard S
AU  - Harned, Douglas A
AU  - Johnston, Brett F
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - ALABAMA
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - RIVER BASINS
KW  - TENNESSEE
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - GEORGIA
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - MISSISSIPPI
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14721820?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1231&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Mobile+River+Basin%2C+Alabama%2C+Georgia%2C+Mississippi%2C+and+Tennessee%2C+1991-2001&rft.au=Atkins%2C+JBrian%3BZappia%2C+Humbert%3BRobinson%2C+James+L%3BMcPherson%2C+Ann+K%3BMoreland%2C+Richard+S%3BHarned%2C+Douglas+A%3BJohnston%2C+Brett+F&rft.aulast=Atkins&rft.aufirst=JBrian&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1231&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 30 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; RIVER BASINS; TENNESSEE; NITRATES; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; GEORGIA; ALABAMA; STREAMS; MISSISSIPPI; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Acadian-Pontchartrain Drainages, Louisiana and Mississippi, 1999-2001
AN  - 14721248; 10673305
AB  - Water quality in the Acadian-Pontchartain drainage basins of Mississippi and Louisiana was monitored during 1999-2001. Surface waters generally met state and federal guidelines for drinking water quality and protection of aquatic life, but water quality and aquatic communities in rivers and bayous have been degraded by increasing pesticide, nutrient, and suspended solid concentrations as a result of agriculture, urbanization, and oil and gas production. At least one pesticide parent compound or degradation product was detected in 272 of 299 water samples. The quality of water in the Chicot aquifer system is of high quality and acceptable for drinking and other purposes.
JF  - USGS Circular 1232
AU  - Demcheck, Dennis K
AU  - Tollett, Roland W
AU  - Mize, Scott V
AU  - Skrobialowski, Stanley C
AU  - Fendick, Robert BJr
AU  - Swarzenski, Christopher M
AU  - Porter, Stephen
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - NUTRIENTS
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - RIVER BASINS
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - LOUISIANA
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - MISSISSIPPI
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14721248?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1232&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Acadian-Pontchartrain+Drainages%2C+Louisiana+and+Mississippi%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Demcheck%2C+Dennis+K%3BTollett%2C+Roland+W%3BMize%2C+Scott+V%3BSkrobialowski%2C+Stanley+C%3BFendick%2C+Robert+BJr%3BSwarzenski%2C+Christopher+M%3BPorter%2C+Stephen&rft.aulast=Demcheck&rft.aufirst=Dennis&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1232&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 39 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - PESTICIDE RESIDUES; NUTRIENTS; MONITORING, WATER; RIVER BASINS; NITRATES; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; LOUISIANA; AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS; MISSISSIPPI; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 1999-2001
AN  - 14720775; 10673522
AB  - Water quality trends monitored in the Delmarva Peninsula during 1999-2001 are reported, Nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide concentrations in streams and rivers reflect the predominance of agriculture. Nitrate levels exceeded 3 mg/l in about half of the headwater streams during base flow in spring. Pesticides, primarily herbicides, were detected throughout the year in streams and commonly occurred in mixtures of multiple compounds. Concentrations of nitrate and herbicides in groundwater of the Delmarva Peninsula are among the highest in the US.
JF  - USGS Circular 1228
AU  - Denver, Judith M
AU  - Ator, Scott W
AU  - Debrewer, Linda M
AU  - Ferrari, Matthew J
AU  - Barbaro, Jeffrey R
AU  - Hancock, Tracy C
AU  - Brayton, Michael J
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - DELAWARE
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - MARYLAND
KW  - RIVER BASINS
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - VIRGINIA
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14720775?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1228&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Delmarva+Peninsula%2C+Delaware%2C+Maryland%2C+and+Virginia%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Denver%2C+Judith+M%3BAtor%2C+Scott+W%3BDebrewer%2C+Linda+M%3BFerrari%2C+Matthew+J%3BBarbaro%2C+Jeffrey+R%3BHancock%2C+Tracy+C%3BBrayton%2C+Michael+J&rft.aulast=Denver&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1228&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-01412.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 3 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - DELAWARE; AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; RIVER BASINS; MARYLAND; NITRATES; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; VIRGINIA; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; GROUNDWATER
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Role of Limnological Processes in Fate and Transport of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads Delivered into Coeur d'Alene Lake and Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, and Flathead Lake, Montana
AN  - 14719627; 10673309
AB  - The primary determinants of the fate and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Coeur d'Alene Lake (CA) and Lake Pend Oreille (LPO), ID, and Flathead Lake (FL), MT, were physical limnological processes such as inflow-plume routing and sedimentation. Assessment of chemical and biological processes was essential to interpret how the date and transport of nutrients were altered within each lake. CA and FL retained about half of the P loads received while LPO retained less than about 17%. Nutrient retention, or lack of it, was strongly linked to circulation processes, in a spatial and temporal context, in all three lakes.
JF  - USGS Professional Paper 1682
AU  - Woods, Paul F
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - <span class="hit">USGS</span>, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - LAKES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - POLLUTANT FATE
KW  - NITROGEN
KW  - SUSPENDED SOLIDS
KW  - IDAHO
KW  - PHOSPHORUS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14719627?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Professional+Paper+1682&rft.atitle=Role+of+Limnological+Processes+in+Fate+and+Transport+of+Nitrogen+and+Phosphorus+Loads+Delivered+into+Coeur+d%27Alene+Lake+and+Lake+Pend+Oreille%2C+Idaho%2C+and+Flathead+Lake%2C+Montana&rft.au=Woods%2C+Paul+F&rft.aulast=Woods&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Professional+Paper+1682&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 5 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; LAKES; IDAHO; MONITORING, WATER; PHOSPHORUS; POLLUTANT FATE; NITROGEN; SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Georgia, 1999-2001
AN  - 14719143; 10673521
AB  - Water quality was monitored during 1999-2001 in the Lower Tennessee River basin. Surface water sampled generally met federal and state guidelines for drinking water quality and protection of aquatic life. Agricultural activities have impacted water quality, as indicated by elevated levels of nutrients,m bacteria, and pesticides in some streams and rivers. Groundwater also generally met state and federal guidelines for drinking water quality. Elevated concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria and the presence of VOCs and pesticides in wells that supply drinking water imply that the Mississippian and Ordovician carbonate aquifers are vulnerable to contamination.
JF  - USGS Circular 1233
AU  - Woodside, Michael D
AU  - Hoos, Anne B
AU  - Kingsbury, James A
AU  - Powell, Jeffrey R
AU  - Knight, Rodney R
AU  - Garrett, Jerry W
AU  - Mitchell, Reavis LIII
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - FECAL COLIFORM
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN
KW  - PHOSPHORUS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14719143?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1233&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Lower+Tennessee+River+Basin%2C+Tennessee%2C+Alabama%2C+Kentucky%2C+Mississippi%2C+and+Georgia%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Woodside%2C+Michael+D%3BHoos%2C+Anne+B%3BKingsbury%2C+James+A%3BPowell%2C+Jeffrey+R%3BKnight%2C+Rodney+R%3BGarrett%2C+Jerry+W%3BMitchell%2C+Reavis+LIII&rft.aulast=Woodside&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1233&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-01411.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 32 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - FECAL COLIFORM; TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; PHOSPHORUS; NITRATES; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Great and Little Miami River Basins, Ohio and Indiana, 1999-2001
AN  - 14719117; 10673518
AB  - Results of a water quality assessment conducted during 1999-2001 in the Great and Little Miami River basins of Ohio and Indiana are compiled. Stream quality has improved over the last 30 yr, but elevated concentrations of nitrients and pesticides were frequently detected, sometimes at levels that exceeded guidelines for the protection of human health or aquatic organisms. PCBs and organochlorine pesticides were present in streambed sediment and fish tissue at concentrations that violated aquatic life guidelines. With few exceptions, groundwater quality was suitable for drinking and other domestic uses. One or more pesticides were det sected in 63% of 96 samples, but no concentrations exceeded drinking water standards or guidelines.
JF  - USGS Circular 1229
AU  - Rowe, Gary LJr
AU  - Reutter, David C
AU  - Runkle, Donna L
AU  - Hambrook, Julie A
AU  - Janosy, Stephanie D
AU  - Hwang, Lee H
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - OHIO
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - RIVER BASINS
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - INDIANA
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14719117?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1229&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Great+and+Little+Miami+River+Basins%2C+Ohio+and+Indiana%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Rowe%2C+Gary+LJr%3BReutter%2C+David+C%3BRunkle%2C+Donna+L%3BHambrook%2C+Julie+A%3BJanosy%2C+Stephanie+D%3BHwang%2C+Lee+H&rft.aulast=Rowe&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1229&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-01408.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; STREAMS; OHIO; RIVER BASINS; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; INDIANA
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Upper Illinois River Basin, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, 1999-2001
AN  - 14718153; 10673519
AB  - Water quality in the upper Illinois River Basin was monitored during 1999-2001. Concentrations of chemicals in stream water occasionally exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic life and drinking water, such as for phosphorus, nitrates, diazinon, and organic wastewater compounds. P levels exceeded the EPA desired goal of 0.10 mg/l to prevent excessive growth of algae and other nuisance plants in every stream water sample collected from urban or mixed land use watersheds. Shallow groundwater in the upper basin generally met drinking water standards and guidelines.
JF  - USGS Circular 1230
AU  - Groschen, George E
AU  - Arnold, Terri L
AU  - Harris, Mitchell A
AU  - Dupre, David H
AU  - Fitzpatrick, Faith A
AU  - Scudder, Barbara C
AU  - Morrow, William SJr
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14718153?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1230&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Upper+Illinois+River+Basin%2C+Illinois%2C+Indiana%2C+and+Wisconsin%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Groschen%2C+George+E%3BArnold%2C+Terri+L%3BHarris%2C+Mitchell+A%3BDupre%2C+David+H%3BFitzpatrick%2C+Faith+A%3BScudder%2C+Barbara+C%3BMorrow%2C+William+SJr&rft.aulast=Groschen&rft.aufirst=George&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1230&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-01409.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 22 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; STREAMS; MONITORING, WATER; NITRATES; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Great Salt Lake Basins, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, 1998-2001
AN  - 14717925; 10673517
AB  - An assessment of water quality in the Great Salt Lake Basins, conducted during 1998-2001, demonstrated that surface waters sampled met existing guidelines for drinking water and protection of aquatic life. Urban, agriculture, and mining land uses have affected water quality, as indicated by elevated concentrations of nutrients, VOCs, pesticides, and trace elements. Pesticides were widespread and were detected in about 95% of the streams sampled. Shallow groundwater in Salt Lake Valley contained elevated concentrations of nitrate, and pesticides and VOCs were detected in many samples from the shallow aquifer.
JF  - USGS Circular 1236
AU  - Waddell, Kidd M
AU  - Gerner, Steven J
AU  - Thiros, Susan A
AU  - Giddings, Elise M
AU  - Baskin, Robert L
AU  - Cederberg, Jay R
AU  - Albano, Christine M
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - GREAT SALT LAKE
KW  - TRACE ELEMENTS
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14717925?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1236&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Great+Salt+Lake+Basins%2C+Utah%2C+Idaho%2C+and+Wyoming%2C+1998-2001&rft.au=Waddell%2C+Kidd+M%3BGerner%2C+Steven+J%3BThiros%2C+Susan+A%3BGiddings%2C+Elise+M%3BBaskin%2C+Robert+L%3BCederberg%2C+Jay+R%3BAlbano%2C+Christine+M&rft.aulast=Waddell&rft.aufirst=Kidd&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1236&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-01407.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 1 |t diagrams
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - LAND USE CLASSIFICATION; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; STREAMS; GREAT SALT LAKE; TRACE ELEMENTS; NITRATES; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the Northern Rockies Intermontane Basins, Idaho, Montana, and Washington, 1999-2001
AN  - 14717256; 10673520
AB  - Water quality trends documented during 1999-2001 in the Northern Rockies Intermontane Basins of Idaho, Montana, and Washington are reported. Trace element levels in streambed sediments exceeded guidelines established for the protection of aquatic life in many streams in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and Spokane River Basins. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in streams were generally low. Arsenic concentrations exceeded the EPA drinking water standard of 10 mu g/l in only three of 31 wells sampled in the basin-fill aquifers underlying the Spokane/Coeur d'Alene area and in none of the 30 wells sampled in the basin-fill aquifers underlying the Missoula/Bitterrot area. VOCs were detected in 19 of 61 samples collected from basin-fill aquifers.
JF  - USGS Circular 1235
AU  - Clark, Gregory M
AU  - Caldwell, Rodney R
AU  - Maret, Terry R
AU  - Bowers, Craig L
AU  - Dutton, DeAnn M
AU  - Beckwith, Michael A
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - WASHINGTON
KW  - MONTANA
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - RIVER BASINS
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - IDAHO
KW  - HEAVY METALS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14717256?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1235&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+Northern+Rockies+Intermontane+Basins%2C+Idaho%2C+Montana%2C+and+Washington%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Clark%2C+Gregory+M%3BCaldwell%2C+Rodney+R%3BMaret%2C+Terry+R%3BBowers%2C+Craig+L%3BDutton%2C+DeAnn+M%3BBeckwith%2C+Michael+A&rft.aulast=Clark&rft.aufirst=Gregory&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1235&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.csa.com/htbin/envabs.cgi?pdf=05-01410.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 18 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - MONTANA; METAL CONCENTRATIONS; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; RIVER BASINS; NITRATES; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; IDAHO; WASHINGTON; HEAVY METALS; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water Quality in the New England Coastal Basins: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1999-2001
AN  - 14705787; 10668330
AB  - Results of a 1999-2001 water quality assessment in the New England coastal basins show that stream ecosystem degradation occurs early in the process of watershed urbanization. Rivers draining highly urbanized watersheds in the Boston, MA, and Providence, RI, areas contained arsenic, chromium, copper, cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc concentrations in streambed sediments that exceeded guidelines for aquatic life protection. Vehicular traffic and historic releases of these metals to the environment from industrial and municipal wastewater are dominant sources of the metals. Hg concentrations were often greater in fish in forested watersheds in New Hampshire than in fish in highly urban watersheds near Boston. VOCs from fuels and commonly used industrial and household products were frequently detected in two heavily urbanized rivers near Boston. As concentrations exceeded the EPA drinking water standard of 10 mu g/l in almost 20% of the domestic wells sampled.
JF  - USGS Circular 1226
AU  - Robinson, Keith W
AU  - Flanagan, Sarah M
AU  - Ayotte, Joseph D
AU  - Campo, Kimberly W
AU  - Chalmers, Ann
AU  - Coles, James F
AU  - Cuffney, Thomas F
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
PB  - USGS, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB
KW  - Environment Abstracts
KW  - PESTICIDE RESIDUES
KW  - NEW ENGLAND
KW  - RIVERS
KW  - WATER, DRINKING
KW  - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
KW  - MONITORING, WATER
KW  - NITRATES
KW  - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
KW  - WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS
KW  - GROUNDWATER
KW  - STREAMS
KW  - HEAVY METALS
KW  - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
KW  - RADON
KW  - ENA 07:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/14705787?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USGS+Circular+1226&rft.atitle=Water+Quality+in+the+New+England+Coastal+Basins%3A+Maine%2C+New+Hampshire%2C+Massachusetts%2C+and+Rhode+Island%2C+1999-2001&rft.au=Robinson%2C+Keith+W%3BFlanagan%2C+Sarah+M%3BAyotte%2C+Joseph+D%3BCampo%2C+Kimberly+W%3BChalmers%2C+Ann%3BColes%2C+James+F%3BCuffney%2C+Thomas+F&rft.aulast=Robinson&rft.aufirst=Keith&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=USGS+Circular+1226&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-08-01
N1  - Document feature - |n 36 |t graphs
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-15
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - METAL CONCENTRATIONS; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; MONITORING, WATER; NITRATES; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; GROUNDWATER; WATER POLLUTION INDICATORS; NEW ENGLAND; STREAMS; RIVERS; HEAVY METALS; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER, DRINKING; RADON
ER  -