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 -